• Welcome to #1 Roulette Forum & Message Board | www.RouletteForum.cc.

News:

WARNING: Forums often contain bad advice & systems that aren't properly tested. Do NOT believe everything. Read these links: The Facts About What Works & Why | How To Proplerly Test Systems | The Top 5 Proven Systems | Best Honest Online Casinos

Main Menu
Popular pages:

Roulette System

The Roulette Systems That Really Work

Roulette Computers

Hidden Electronics That Predict Spins

Roulette Strategy

Why Roulette Betting Strategies Lose

Roulette System

The Honest Live Online Roulette Casinos

Iowa gambling task – thought experiment

Started by precogmiles, Dec 31, 02:22 PM 2019

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

precogmiles

If you don’t know what the Iowa gambling task is here is a quick video.


link:s://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa_gambling_task

I have a thought experiment.

Let us say there are two players, Jane and John

The game is a non-zero roulette wheel and they are only allowed to bet 1 unit on a dozen (12 numbers).

The numbers generated from the wheel are PRNG, there is a formula that produces a very slight edge on some numbers, given certain parameters. Those biased numbers change every 36 spins.

The game consists of a 1000 sessions and each session has 36 spins. In total 36000 spins.

We also see a nice even distribution for all the numbers, each number has appeared around 1000 times.

The experiment is repeated several times. Each time the formula is changed slightly, so that they can not learn from previous trails.
After 100 runs of the game, jane has outperformed John 80:20

My question is….

If you were observing this experiment and did not know that the numbers were generated using a formula. What chance would you give John winning the next million games?

Now let us say that we have completed 500,000 (half a million) spins and Jane is still up by a ratio of 80:20. What chance would you give John winning the next million games?


precogmiles

I see this went over people’s heads.

The thought experiment above, highlights why regression to the mean does not always correlate to reality. We should also take into consideration that RTM is not a physical law. I could theoretically predict the next 100 spins accurately, there is not physical law preventing this.

With this understood, we must accept that non local knowledge has a role to play in how “lucky” some people are.

The study of luck or random from an esoteric perspective is the only way forward.

Herby

Quote from: precogmiles on Jan 01, 03:36 AM 2020I see this went over people’s heads.
Last night was silvester night.
Didn't you find out with your precognition abilities ?
You must be very lonely.  :sad2:

precogmiles

Quote from: Herby on Jan 01, 04:12 AM 2020
Last night was silvester night.
Didn't you find out with your precognition abilities ?
You must be very lonely.  :sad2:

So your excuse for not understanding the post is that you were too drunk?

Then reply when you sober up.

-