The "Statistical Imbalance" fallacy

[Steve]

But  the same question You have two players different wheels and roulette computer calculated the the same sector and number but they got different results.

No it's nothing like RNG.

With RNG, the results would have absolutely no correlation to each other.

With real wheel physics, if the variables are the same, the results will be much the same. There is some variance, but on the vast majority of spins, the ball will still land in much the expected area.

[Winner]

No it's nothing like RNG.

With RNG, the results would have absolutely no correlation to each other.

With real wheel physics, if the variables are the same, the results will be much the same. There is some variance, but on the vast majority of spins, the ball will still land in much the expected area.

👌

[Clf7]

Ok kimo, let's say 2 players use the system on different rng, but see the same 8 spins. Then they make the same bets. But because the rngs are different, the next numbers will be different. How does your system win then? The outcomes are completely different.

I think the wins will appear but at the first one at first spin and the other at 4th for example.Nobody says that they will appear immediately.Perhaps in 5,6 or 7 spins? I dont know ofc, Kimo will answer

[Kimo Li]

I think the wins will appear but at the first one at first spin and the other at 4th for example.Nobody says that they will appear immediately.Perhaps in 5,6 or 7 spins? I dont know ofc, Kimo will answer

Exactly, the numbers after the eight spins will reflect the bet section for both past spins and may hit the first spin for one, the second spin for the other. In any case, the bet selection will accommodate both scenarios.

[Steve]

Now you're saying certain events must happen, which is again fallacy. So is "pigeonholing". You still have payouts below the odds. Your bets still have random accuracy.

And you're saying past random spins are connected to future spins. They arent.

Kimo, for you is: the more random the better?

What would happen if 100 players used your hg and every spin their rng changed? They'd still win, right?

[carvigno]

If you are playing alone with casino RNG software based device no way you are goint to win since it is programmed as a slot machine.

Software knows where you placed your bet and it will produce a number accordingly.

If you are not in the right spot to qualify for a prize then you'll lose miserably.

These devices produce  "randomn" outcomes when many people are betting at the same time all over the virtual felt. In these cases keeping a low profile could let you get away with murder.

Certain events must happen yes or yes. No way they cant happen.

I believe you didnt read carefully a scientist reserch about randomness posted by me some days ago. What you are implying is that someone doesnt know when they will repeat.

I disagree. Past spins despite being independent from each others they leave "footprints".

Chaos has rhythm and produces simmetries which can persist for more or less extensive time.

Most people seems to be anaware of these rhythms and simmetries in EC for instance or at least they dont know how to take adventage of them.

The issue naysayers have has to do with an erroneous conception of the game because you face it from the wrong spectrum of mathematics.

The correct spectrum that you have to look at is that of statistics (collecting data) and their analysis.

Besides you are worried somebody can prove you wrong since it means you were mistaken for so long.

Math boys/girls either dont study the game or if they did and figured out some kind of solution they stay mute.

[Steve]

Carvingo, youve really got no idea and i wont waste the time.

[carvigno]

Steve, for once, we agree. I think the same of you.

[Winner]

Here is something interesting for you people trying to find something that works .
Ex you have 17000 placed bets and for the guys that are interested in spins that’s 100.000 imo those don’t count but what ever,out of 17000 I lose 8 time martingale of 7 bets in a row
128 units what else do you want in life imo you-beat the game .

[Kimo Li]

Now you're saying certain events must happen, which is again fallacy. So is "pigeonholing". You still have payouts below the odds. Your bets still have random accuracy.

And you're saying past random spins are connected to future spins. They arent.

Kimo, for you is: the more random the better?

What would happen if 100 players used your hg and every spin their rng changed? They'd still win, right?

My bets still have random accuracy.

All spins are connected to future events.

Randomness is indifferent. My system is designed to decipher any random spins.

Of course, 100 player using the hg will always win.


The fact that you are using your values and what you have learned to judge me, tells me you are still searching for the solution to solve the illusive RNG dilemma. It's a unicorn, something that most people would like to exist.

Sorry to have wasted your time. By the way, I have been called the Unicorn. 

[gizmotron2]

Now you're saying certain events must happen, which is again fallacy. So is "pigeonholing". You still have payouts below the odds. Your bets still have random accuracy.

And you're saying past random spins are connected to future spins. They arent.

I must get in on this. It completely applies to Reading Randomness. I would say that at least one thing must happen if you can decide to see gambling in this way. Games of chance have a tendency to go up and down when all you have is a choice between one side or the other, the proverbial "coin flip." One day it can be all good. On another day it can be all bad. It can grind away real slow either way. It can be an imperceptible mishmosh.

In that way the individual spins are connected to the whole results. So the question is can you gamble based on session results as a whole? I say you can if you decide to. You can also decide to only see each spin as part of one single thing or nothing. But then you get into the chicken or the egg  disagreements.

Randomness has all kinds of characteristics. "It can't get more or less random" could be debatable but then that would more than likely to digress to a discussion of semantics.

[Steve]

Kimo, if your bets have random accuracy, your system isn't the hg. It is no better than other losing systems. That's because the payouts are below the odds.

It's not something you can debate. It's either understood or not.

What's the point of bet selection if accuracy of predictions is still random? With a single number you still average 1 in 37 but get paid 35-1. Your claims are literally impossible.

[Kimo Li]

Kimo, if your bets have random accuracy, your system isn't the hg. It is no better than other losing systems. That's because the payouts are below the odds.

It's not something you can debate. It's either understood or not.

What's the point of bet selection if accuracy of predictions is still random? With a single number you still average 1 in 37 but get paid 35-1. Your claims are literally impossible.

If any system have random accuracy, and wins, it's the HG.
Random can be categorized randomly to facilitate random outcomes that somehow magically hits random bet selections.
My claims are not impossible. In fact, I am teaching a student on an InterBlock airball how to win 100.00 a day with the following parameters: Max bet 35.00 per spin, 24 seconds between spins. Under these circumstances, he still manages to make anywhere from 50.00 to 400.00 per session, everyday. That's done in a time period of 20 minutes to 2 hours, no problem.

Imagine if there were no max bet restrictions, sky is the limit. I have graduates all over the world who make 40,000.00 to 50,000.00 per month, using the same principles. No! It's not impossible. Impossible for everyone else who does not know how to look beyond their limitations.

[Steve]

Kimo, the limitation is reality, expressed as really basic math, which you dont understand.

You dont even understand your constant contradictions. Like random spins that hit better than random but dont, but do. Youre just another experienced player masquerading as a guru.

[Kali49]

Just Random thoughts :

Randomize and normalize your data sample using a probability distribution that is different from normal distribution, use bayesian updating formulas to find the conditional probabilities involved, compute the parameters of your model given the known data.

If that doesn't work, transform the matrix into a graph using a non-parametric bayesian model into a graph with edges and vertices using the Colour box concept like the example in the picture below:



Tracking Random groups this way is different.
Take it a step further and you will get graphs that can be analyzed using graph theory.

The point is, either you belong to a frequentists mindset which believes on the long term frequencies to tell the probabilities of a given random process. That is to say this group tries to fix probabilities while playing around and manipulating data looking for better predictions.

Or you may belong to the bayesian mindset group, they believe that probabilities must reflect our beliefs on a specific event occurring rather than the probabilities being fixed.
They fix the data and they try to estimate what the parameters or the probabilities that would produce the observed data.

Belief is a powerful thing, and is important to understand in this domain.