Yep, more gamblers fallacy for you. GOOD TIMES!

[flukey luke]

What about all the posts and graphs that 'Turbogenius' did which showed there was no difference between hot and cold numbers?

I will need to go back and read them all now.     I never agreed with him. I thought most people would run out of bankroll and patience waiting for things to eventually catch up.

One thing I have found in all my testing is that you get longer losing runs of events as opposed to winning runs. I make money at this game betting for something to stay cold as opposed something staying hot. The only caveat there is that the bet is not static. The principle is the same however.

[flukey luke]

Just a warning!

I went to look at the Turbogenius site and my security system said it was an 'unsafe' site and blocked it. Just telling you guys in case it has a virus or something.

Maybe 'The Donald' has got to him after all these years. That system in the safe was a dead duck, lol.

[MrJ]

What about all the posts and graphs that 'Turbogenius' did which showed there was no difference between hot and cold numbers?

I will need to go back and read them all now.     I never agreed with him. I thought most people would run out of bankroll and patience waiting for things to eventually catch up.

One thing I have found in all my testing is that you get longer losing runs of events as opposed to winning runs. I make money at this game betting for something to stay cold as opposed something staying hot. The only caveat there is that the bet is not static. The principle is the same however.

Here's the thing.....it really all depends on HOW the experiment is laid out. Its quite possible the stats Turbo put out were correct but he chose the WORDING of hot and cold differently than I did. It took me a long time to WORD my question the way I wanted. Why did I go through all this trouble? Because the anti-method (AP) crew, say that under *NO* conditions, can a certain number be 'better' to bet on compared to a different number. I say thats bulls**t.

If 'they' were to ever agree with my experiment (the way I worded it) it would DESTROY every insult they ever posted against a method person, it would make them look weak and worse....WRONG. 'They' will NEVER admit to being wrong, never never never never never!!

Then what will happen, they'll do their own testing and GUESS WHAT??? (lol) By some crazy surprise, their stats will show that its more or less even, no 'advantage' betting on a hot number or two. (I'm not talking about betting on 10 hot numbers) Its called fudging the numbers....keeping the AGENDA going at ANY cost.

Fake results, fake user names etc., whatever it takes.

Ken

[flukey luke]

Because the anti-method (Advantage-play) crew, say that under *NO* conditions, can a certain number be 'better' to bet on compared to a different number. I say that's bulls**t.
 

It can all get very confusing.

For example: If I bet on the 4 5 6 street, IMO, that street does not mathematically have any more chance of coming out over any other street BUT there has to be a pattern of results.
Say the next 5 streets are 1, 6, 7, 7, 8. I could bet them all and show a profit BUT I honestly think I would be wrong to say any of those streets had an advantage of appearing over any other.

This is where it gets confusing, because if you can do that regularly enough to show a long term profit, how would you describe that?

You can show it's not luck by making a few calculations. But can you give an excact figure/explanation on what your edge/advantage is. And if not, WHY not?

Tricky 'eh. So you could be an advantage player yourself (which would be kind of ironic) without even knowing what the hell you were doing to achieve it. And this takes me to my final point. All these arguments will just continue to go around in circles because there are just too many paradoxical contradictions that NO side can really answer with 100% certainty.

[MrJ]

You make a couple good points.


I did a thread on this before >>> "But can you give an excact figure/explanation on what your edge/advantage is. And if not, WHY not"?

I did a thread on this before >>> "So you could be an advantage player yourself (which would be kind of ironic) without even knowing what the hell you were doing to achieve it".

Ken

[MrJ]

You can't really answer these types of questions on the basis of observed behaviour, because GF is a BELIEF. If the guy believes that the number is "due" on the 36th attempt and that's WHY he increases the stake, then it's GF, but you can't say whether or not it's GF just by observing him increasing the stake, because he may have other reasons for doing it.

You bring up an interesting point Bayes. Now we can add a 'feeling' OR a 'belief' into the possible definitions of gamblers fallacy. (LoL)

If I BELIEVE the #13 should hit within the next 20 spins because it has not hit in a long time, I guess that's gamblers fallacy. If I bet on the #13 for the next 20 spins because I was born on the 13th (my lucky number), I guess that's NOT gamblers fallacy? Geez, my head is spinning!

Ken

[Gizmotron]

Bayes -" I was surprised at this, so I ran a few more tests and got similar results each time. So on the basis of this test, there does seem to be some support for the claim that hot numbers are a better bet."

Can you run the same 100,000 spin test to see the hot / cold numbers, where 300 & 450 are compaired to 600 used in the same way?

[MrJ]

Bayes -" I was surprised at this, so I ran a few more tests and got similar results each time. So on the basis of this test, there does seem to be some support for the claim that hot numbers are a better bet."

Can you run the same 100,000 spin test to see the hot / cold numbers, where 300 & 450 are compaired to 600 used in the same way?

I think KEN is also involved in this (lol). Like I said, it ALL DEPENDS on how you word the testing/experiment. I could probably re-word a hot and cold numbers test where the results would come damn close to breaking even.

Ken

[Gizmotron]

Ken, I didn't  want to piss you off either. LOL! Bayes has a sim all written up. I just wanted him to trade out 600 for 300 & 450.

[MrJ]

I know, only joking. I'll tell you something, regardless of how any tests turn out, I'm still sticking with playing a hot number(s). Years ago I played only the sleepers......trial and error I guess. 

Ken

[Gizmotron]

Ken, you must have a great deal of experience regarding some of the characteristics of randomness.  With a full study of hottest numbers added to this you will soon learn that much faster scenarios exist in simple things like the outside bets. You will soon learn that it's  all the same the way that randomness acts. Things like the hottest dozen. Things like a dominent EC or a sleeping dozen happen all the time. They are very powerful and are easiest  to work with  than long tracking hot numbers.

[XXVV]

Following some great hints on Kens Blog I recently threw the net over a few groups of two target numbers only, in the last ten sessions where I have recorded live spin data.
Because the individual numbers pay 35-1 and by encountering a significant number of targets that bounced along hit after hit, in two cases of the ten sessions, a start bank of 200 units would have finished at +1000 units if allowed, as there were nine wins in the string.
In the other cases the sessions were either break even or achieved a modest 10-15% gain on RB.
I simply followed the guidelines Ken had published that had been learned through valuable trial and error.
Such levereaged returns would not be available to outside table bets, although they certainly have their place in conservative play.
Perhaps my sample was fortunate but by following the smart money management guideline recommended, had the sessions not fired, the net loss would have been small.
By definition, if they are hot, the results will be hot.
No fallacy in that test.

[Bayes]

Can you run the same 100,000 spin test to see the hot / cold numbers, where 300 & 450 are compaired to 600 used in the same way?

Ok, using my file of actuals - results for 300 spins -

Hot      Cold
1116,  1116

For 350 spins -

Hot      Cold
1086,   993

For 450 spins -

Hot      Cold
823,    799

It's tempting to think there may be a "sweet spot" at 350, but I wouldn't read too much into it. I'll do a longer test using RNG to get the long term stats. The trouble with betting only a few numbers is that you need a LOT of tests to determine whether there really is a difference, or whether it's just randomness/variance.

[Bayes]

Ken, you must have a great deal of experience regarding some of the characteristics of randomness.  With a full study of hottest numbers added to this you will soon learn that much faster scenarios exist in simple things like the outside bets. You will soon learn that it's  all the same the way that randomness acts. Things like the hottest dozen. Things like a dominent EC or a sleeping dozen happen all the time. They are very powerful and are easiest  to work with  than long tracking hot numbers.

I tend to agree. One of the things which surprised me when I first started looking into this was the sheer number of spins that a trend can continue for, and I was concentrating on the ECs, which is a relatively low variance bet. Someone could go for years playing  1 or 2 numbers at a time and thinking they had roulette beat, when all the time it was just a temporary peak.

I'm not saying that playing just a few numbers is a bad way to play, just that you need to crunch an awful lot of data to be sure of any conclusions you come to.

[Bayes]

Results from running the test over 100,000 sessions -

Spins,  Hot,        Cold,          % difference

300,     37415,   37129,       0.77
350,     37588,   36694,       2.44
400,     37414,   36942,       1.27
450,     37890,   36755,       3.1
500,     37645,   36821,       2.44
550,     37852,   36491,       3.73
600,     38019,   36246,       4.9

For each number of spins looking back, the hot numbers were winners, but in general the trend is that the % difference increases the further back you go.

Gambler's fallacy?