Author Topic: Gambler's Fallacy Mega thread  (Read 1177 times)

Real

  • Fighting the war on absurdity one foolish idea at a time.
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1203
  • Thanked: 120 times
  • Gender: Female
Gambler's Fallacy Mega thread
« on: December 26, 2016, 11:37:43 PM »
Quote
I have been testing simply betting the "last event". Meaning if you had red-red,
there was no change. So bet red again. Or if it was red-black, there was a change.
So bet red, for a change.-Mogul

Mogul,

If the number of pockets on the wheel remains the same from one spin to the next, then why would it matter whether or not the last spin was red or black?


 
The following users thanked this post: Reyth

Real

  • Fighting the war on absurdity one foolish idea at a time.
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1203
  • Thanked: 120 times
  • Gender: Female
Re: Gambler's Fallacy Mega thread
« Reply #1 on: December 27, 2016, 05:06:50 AM »
And you are recycling the same old GF ideas.
 
The following users thanked this post: Reyth

Real

  • Fighting the war on absurdity one foolish idea at a time.
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1203
  • Thanked: 120 times
  • Gender: Female
Re: Gambler's Fallacy Mega thread
« Reply #2 on: December 27, 2016, 05:08:55 AM »

Quote
Because we all have seen 50 of an EC in a row right?-Reyth

Well, if you stand around and wait for 45 in a row, then you have about a 1 in 32 chance of seeing 50 in a row. (No Zeros)

If you're really patient and you stand around and wait for 49 in a row, then you have about a 1 in 2 chance of seeing 50 in a row.  (No Zeros)

-Really
« Last Edit: December 27, 2016, 05:12:58 AM by Real »
 
The following users thanked this post: Reyth

Duncan

  • New
  • **
  • Posts: 61
  • Thanked: 24 times
Re: Gambler's Fallacy Mega thread
« Reply #3 on: December 27, 2016, 07:53:14 AM »
Mr Real.
 We all do appreciate the things you say about the pockets and the maths of roulette and most of us we really know the things you say.
We can t argue with what you say because they are REAL :)
 BUT here is a roulette forum and this means that we all try to find something that is impossible.
Maybe we are crazy , maybe we live in our falacy .
 My point is that we are trying to explore IF there a pattern or something that can have a better probability than the expected... a wave in randomness to ride etc.
So IMO posting the same things all over isn t helping in any way.I mean there is no point in posting that roulette can t be beaten with patterns etc.
Would you like to participate in our journey?( I guess not)
 You can take it that its our hobby ... in our free time we are dreaming that randomness may have a way to be managed and take this advantage to make money.
Personally speaking I know that it is impossible but I feel better exploring than stopping.
It s not like a mania its like a hobby.
 I know you have a good understanding in Bias and VB . So If you like to contribute to this forum why don t you post things about your field?  Then you will have a real reason to be in here.

 
The following users thanked this post: Reyth

Bayes

  • Veteran Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 579
  • Thanked: 438 times
  • roulettician.com
Re: Gambler's Fallacy Mega thread
« Reply #4 on: December 27, 2016, 09:43:58 AM »
I see Real now has his own section. Good Idea!  ;D

Each time he attempts to hijack a thread the post could be diverted to here - the GF Dump. No need to even check what he's written because they're all variations on the same theme.
 
« Last Edit: December 27, 2016, 09:46:01 AM by Bayes »
 
The following users thanked this post: Reyth

Bayes

  • Veteran Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 579
  • Thanked: 438 times
  • roulettician.com
Re: Gambler's Fallacy Mega thread
« Reply #5 on: December 27, 2016, 10:22:29 AM »
I know you have a good understanding in Bias and VB . So If you like to contribute to this forum why don t you post things about your field?  Then you will have a real reason to be in here.

What you have to remember about Real is that his purpose in posting in the forums (like it is in the "real" world - pun intended) is to locate vulnerable wheels. He has been quite explicit about that elsewhere. He's looking for contacts - the more the better. So it wouldn't make sense for him to give any credence to systems or any method of play which doesn't involve physical aspects of the game. A key part of the strategy in his "recruitment campaign" is to trash the competition, i.e. systems. The more readers and posters he can convince that systems are worthless, the more potential contacts he has. Simple as that.

I know the constant "trolling" can be annoying, but I don't think he's a troll in the usual sense in that he's deliberately trying to get a reaction, nor do I think he really cares one way or the other whether anyone understands the received truth about systems; he's not doing it for idealistic reasons or to "save" roulette players from the gambler's fallacy; his reasons are more personal than that (and not saying that's a bad thing, it's just something to keep in mind when you read his posts).

So it's a big waste of time trying to explain your reasons for thinking that there can be merit in systems, or trying to "prove" that they can work. It wouldn't suit his agenda to even acknowledge that possibility. It's not that he has tried systems and only then turned to AP, having found them wanting; he has never been interested in them and never will be.
 
The following users thanked this post: Reyth, gizmotron

MrPerfect.

  • Veteran Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 544
  • Thanked: 333 times
Re: Gambler's Fallacy Mega thread
« Reply #6 on: December 27, 2016, 11:32:49 AM »
I know you have a good understanding in Bias and VB . So If you like to contribute to this forum why don t you post things about your field?  Then you will have a real reason to be in here.

What you have to remember about Real is that his purpose in posting in the forums (like it is in the "real" world - pun intended) is to locate vulnerable wheels. He has been quite explicit about that elsewhere. He's looking for contacts - the more the better. So it wouldn't make sense for him to give any credence to systems or any method of play which doesn't involve physical aspects of the game. A key part of the strategy in his "recruitment campaign" is to trash the competition, i.e. systems. The more readers and posters he can convince that systems are worthless, the more potential contacts he has. Simple as that.

I know the constant "trolling" can be annoying, but I don't think he's a troll in the usual sense in that he's deliberately trying to get a reaction, nor do I think he really cares one way or the other whether anyone understands the received truth about systems; he's not doing it for idealistic reasons or to "save" roulette players from the gambler's fallacy; his reasons are more personal than that (and not saying that's a bad thing, it's just something to keep in mind when you read his posts).

So it's a big waste of time trying to explain your reasons for thinking that there can be merit in systems, or trying to "prove" that they can work. It wouldn't suit his agenda to even acknowledge that possibility. It's not that he has tried systems and only then turned to AP, having found them wanting; he has never been interested in them and never will be.
Interesting? Is it about same Real l know?
   Qwote from his book :
" There have been countless mathematical systems created for the random game. All of them fail miserably because the player still has a negative expectation each spin, regardless of the amount wagered. However, what happens when the player has a positive expectation each spin?
Answer: Many of these worthless mathematical systems can then actually work! The key is that you have the advantage each spin, provided that you are only wagering on BIAS numbers. Regardless of the amount you wager on a bias number each spin, your expectation is a positive one. Have some fun playing around with some of these different systems."
   As you can see, Real is not egeinst systems themselves. ... his argument is always same : " Need to address issue of HE".
    I myself say the same. Let's find favorable bets thru physical ways ( vb/ bias) and then explore generated advantage with all means that system play may offer.
 
The following users thanked this post: Reyth

Bayes

  • Veteran Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 579
  • Thanked: 438 times
  • roulettician.com
Re: Gambler's Fallacy Mega thread
« Reply #7 on: December 27, 2016, 12:45:01 PM »
    I myself say the same. Let's find favorable bets thru physical ways ( vb/ bias) and then explore generated advantage with all means that system play may offer.

Once you've found a favourable bet you don't need a system. And the money management is simple too. You may agree with Real, but at least you don't hijack system threads in multiple forums with "it won't work". It must as boring for Real to keep writing it as it is for those who have to read it, but if it gets him more contacts and biased wheels I guess it must be worth the trouble.

My point was that for Real it isn't really about: "fighting the war on absurdity one foolish idea at a time", or "stopping the infection of ignorance". There's another reason for the constant system bashing.

« Last Edit: December 27, 2016, 12:48:50 PM by Bayes »
 
The following users thanked this post: kav, Reyth

MrPerfect.

  • Veteran Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 544
  • Thanked: 333 times
Re: Gambler's Fallacy Mega thread
« Reply #8 on: December 27, 2016, 02:04:49 PM »
    I myself say the same. Let's find favorable bets thru physical ways ( vb/ bias) and then explore generated advantage with all means that system play may offer.

Once you've found a favourable bet you don't need a system. And the money management is simple too. You may agree with Real, but at least you don't hijack system threads in multiple forums with "it won't work". It must as boring for Real to keep writing it as it is for those who have to read it, but if it gets him more contacts and biased wheels I guess it must be worth the trouble.

My point was that for Real it isn't really about: "fighting the war on absurdity one foolish idea at a time", or "stopping the infection of ignorance". There's another reason for the constant system bashing.
It's wrong to think that one's you found wheel, bet - you are automatically OK.  Exploration of favorable opportunities is not a skill , it's a science.  One can do everything wright and still loose money due to mistake in edge estimation and/ or money management. Find situable wheel is easiest part ( they are everywhere), determine how to squize money out of it , it's all other story.
  I do not know about others, l spend far more time on data analysis and tracking then playing itself.
    You say bashing systems... l do not see systems or folks who speak them , besides one or two probably. People recicle old ideas over and over, it's a road to nowhere. Problem is not systems, it's odds. While odds are in favor of casino- casino wins. 
   
 
The following users thanked this post: Reyth

scepticus

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1666
  • Thanked: 309 times
Re: Gambler's Fallacy Mega thread
« Reply #9 on: December 27, 2016, 02:56:54 PM »
    I myself say the same. Let's find favorable bets thru physical ways ( vb/ bias) and then explore generated advantage with all means that system play may offer.

Once you've found a favourable bet you don't need a system. And the money management is simple too. You may agree with Real, but at least you don't hijack system threads in multiple forums with "it won't work". It must as boring for Real to keep writing it as it is for those who have to read it, but if it gets him more contacts and biased wheels I guess it must be worth the trouble.

My point was that for Real it isn't really about: "fighting the war on absurdity one foolish idea at a time", or "stopping the infection of ignorance". There's another reason for the constant system bashing.

Once you've found a favourable bet you don't need a system.

I agree Bayes and have said so before . This was what the old- timers did . Find a bias and bet the  numbers in the biased areas.  No need for any other calculations.
That was then and this is now and Physicists would scorn the idea that you can find a modern wheel that is so biased that it could be exploited. I read somewhere that Real’s hero ,Laurence Scott , admits that his idea may not work with modern wheels.
So the notion that you can find such a wheel is itself  likely to be a fallacy .
I have challenged Real to tell me a Physicist that agrees that he can find such a wheel -in a corporation owned casino . He has failed to do so  and that, I think, is because there are none.
Is his Real  purpose in trashing systems  to lure the gullible into paying  him for his help ? If his book is free why doesn’t he post it on this and other forums . I think he is afraid to post it here because it would give us the opportunity to LO.L.
 
The following users thanked this post: Reyth

Reyth

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3025
  • Thanked: 812 times
Re: Gambler's Fallacy Mega thread
« Reply #10 on: December 27, 2016, 04:09:43 PM »




« Last Edit: December 29, 2016, 06:04:13 PM by kav »
 
The following users thanked this post: ShadowBlue

MrPerfect.

  • Veteran Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 544
  • Thanked: 333 times
Re: Gambler's Fallacy Mega thread
« Reply #11 on: December 27, 2016, 05:51:12 PM »
    I myself say the same. Let's find favorable bets thru physical ways ( vb/ bias) and then explore generated advantage with all means that system play may offer.

Once you've found a favourable bet you don't need a system. And the money management is simple too. You may agree with Real, but at least you don't hijack system threads in multiple forums with "it won't work". It must as boring for Real to keep writing it as it is for those who have to read it, but if it gets him more contacts and biased wheels I guess it must be worth the trouble.

My point was that for Real it isn't really about: "fighting the war on absurdity one foolish idea at a time", or "stopping the infection of ignorance". There's another reason for the constant system bashing.
OK,  Bayes, if it's so simple, l will post 600 numbers , you make your predictions ( structure bet, progression... ets). And then l post 300 more so we  can verify how did you perform on such an easy task. OK?  I'll post when arrive home.
 

MrPerfect.

  • Veteran Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 544
  • Thanked: 333 times
Re: Gambler's Fallacy Mega thread
« Reply #12 on: December 29, 2016, 12:54:58 PM »
@Scepticus, Bayes, here is your chance, guys. You can show your undrestanding in what is related to determining bet and proper progression.
 on the link provided there is 300 spins results. Structure your bet and progression to win at least 3k on next 100 spins or 15k on next 200 spins

https://mega.nz/#!1xUQlDxC!XYN32pQYh06koofKQ0GJV22x8skfiq2a4siHYPchB1U

Task is obviosly possible and relatively simple.
  initial bank- 100 . minimum bet is 1/number . maximum (if you need it)- 10000/number. After you both submitted your bet and strategy sudgestions, l will post 200 spins more , so we can see how you guys performed.
« Last Edit: December 29, 2016, 01:03:58 PM by kav »
 

scepticus

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1666
  • Thanked: 309 times
Re: Gambler's Fallacy Mega thread
« Reply #13 on: December 29, 2016, 03:53:51 PM »
@Scepticus, Bayes, here is your chance, guys. You can show your undrestanding in what is related to determining bet and proper progression.
 on the link provided there is 300 spins results. Structure your bet and progression to win at least 3k on next 100 spins or 15k on next 200 spins

https://mega.nz/#!1xUQlDxC!XYN32pQYh06koofKQ0GJV22x8skfiq2a4siHYPchB1U

Task is obviosly possible and relatively simple.
  initial bank- 100 . minimum bet is 1/number . maximum (if you need it)- 10000/number. After you both submitted your bet and strategy sudgestions, l will post 200 spins more , so we can see how you guys performed.

Mr  Imperfect.
You are still so wrapped up in your version of AP  that you don’t understand what others say.
I DO NOT DO PROGRESSIONS  ! Get  it ?
I DO NOT DOWNLOAD  ANYTHING I DON’T TRUST  ! Get it ?
I DO NOT AIM TO WIN THOUSANDS ! Get it ?
MY MAIN AIM IS NOT TO LOSE ! Get it ?
I AM HAPPY TO TAKE ANY PROFIT  ! Get it ?
I  USE A HIT AND RUN STRATEGY . Get it ?

You tell me that you can show me how to win a million and yet cannot do that yourself !
You claim that you win thousands and yet ask for someone to fund your bets !
You cannot name even one Physicist that will accept  that your idea will work in  actual betting !   
You offer to help others who have difficulty in operating your system but will charge a fee !  Neither I or others in the forum ask for payment when we give our ideas .

I offered you the opportunity to see  how I operate and in return you would show me you winning THOUSANDS  without  needing to tell me HOW you do it . You declined my offer and that is because  you cannot do what you claim.
You are more likely to be on State Benefits than  be a Roulette Professional. 

YOU ARE A FANTASIST !
« Last Edit: December 29, 2016, 03:56:16 PM by scepticus »
 

Jesper

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1138
  • Thanked: 537 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: Gambler's Fallacy Mega thread
« Reply #14 on: December 29, 2016, 04:05:44 PM »
What Real says is if you bet the winning number you win else not, and not is for all except me or the ones I can make my living on. He does it not on roulette I suppose.
 
The following users thanked this post: Reyth