+ Register

[Bayes]

Turner,


Thanks for that very gracious apology. You do have a point, though, and I can't blame you for being cynical. Much of what passes for debate and discussion here does resemble a Mr Universe competition, because most posters don't even attempt to back up their views with reasoned argument or explanation.


Happy Christmas!

[Albalaha]

most posters don't even attempt to back up their views with reasoned argument or explanation.

Because they do not have any, they only have fallacies and they love to pamper them day by day.

[Sputnik]

Because they do not have any, they only have fallacies and they love to pamper them day by day.

I assume you are one among them or am i wrong ?

[Albalaha]

I hate fallacies and fallacy mongers as well. I can test what I presume or "sense" having some value and through simulating random sessions I reach any conclusion. If I believe something to be workable I will test not less than 1000 sessions of 1000 spins each. Had I been on these fallacies I wouldn't have beaten 10 million spins.

[Sputnik]

I hate fallacies and fallacy mongers as well. I can test what I presume or "sense" having some value and through simulating random sessions I reach any conclusion. If I believe something to be workable I will test not less than 1000 sessions of 1000 spins each. Had I been on these fallacies I wouldn't have beaten 10 million spins.

I don't understand.
I assume you use past results that has no effect on future spins and that is Gamblers Fallacy, so why are you not basing your game on fallacies like all others.

I don't understand your argument passing 10 million spins.
I have never read any method by you that perform better then any other method, but if you think i am wrong, then feel free to show me.

[Turner]

I hate fallacies and fallacy mongers as well. I can test what I presume or "sense" having some value and through simulating random sessions I reach any conclusion. If I believe something to be workable I will test not less than 1000 sessions of 1000 spins each. Had I been on these fallacies I wouldn't have beaten 10 million spins.

I can't disagree with this statement The weight on my shoulders is that I believe nothing on face value....I have to go see it for my self. Not always possible...like the height of Mount Everest. Sometimes you just have to go with what's written...or set off to Nepal with a tape measure. Not always practical

[Albalaha]

I don't understand.
I assume you use past results that has no effect on future spins and that is Gamblers Fallacy, so why are you not basing your game on fallacies like all others.

I don't understand your argument passing 10 million spins.
I have never read any method by you that perform better then any other method, but if you think i am wrong, then feel free to show me.

If you are  really not aware, have a look here: http://betselection.cc/ophis'-mst/holy-grail-randomness-can-be-beaten-even-in-the-longest-run/

.or set off to Nepal with a tape measure.[/size]

[/size]Funny.

[Xander]

Really it's the observer that assigns value to a rare occurrence.   If we walked up to a wheel and witnessed 25 reds in a row, we would be bragging about the rare freakish streak that we had just witnessed.   However, everyone over looks the rare streaks every time they look at the reader board.  For example, consider the last 25 spins.  If you were looking for that particular patter of red and black, then you would have just witnessed something just as unusual.  How about the last 25 or 100 numbers that you just played at the wheel?  What if someone was looking for that extremely rare pattern of those exact numbers in that exact order of occurrence?  My point to all of this, is that randomness really has no limits other than those that relate to the degrees of freedom and the number of spins witnessed on the wheel.  (For example you can't witness a run of 20 reds if you're only going to look at 10 spins.  And you can't witness the number 39 hit.)

For the record, the longest streak of red that I have witnessed, first hand, was 26 in a row at the Taj Mahal casino in Atlantic City, NJ 2007.   (No, it's not an Indian Casino. And yeah, I don't know why that's relevant either.  ). There were people foolishly chasing the black with up as you lose progressions, and there were people riding the streak on red.  It was a mix.  Interestingly enough, red did continue hitting quite well the entire night.  I never did witness any strong streaks on the black.  But then again, why should I have?  There's nothing that says that black will eventually catch up.     Black would not be expected to make up for it's large deficit. 


And no, the Guinness Book of World Records didn't show up to record the event.  To my knowledge, such records don't really even exist.


-Xander

[Albalaha]

Even if you see 10x of break even (say a single EC bet hitting 20 times in a row) getting clustered in a sequence, it is merely another layer of randomness. All limits are only virtual limits and there is no absolute limit of randomness. What is looking extreme to you will be surpassed a day. In real, only one pocket among the 37/38 has caught the ball and looking at the color of the paint the pocket has or its nature by high/low or even/odd is a fallacy in itself and holds no good.

[Xander]

It appears that we agree.

[Albalaha]

It appears that we agree.

              I will always agree with logical and scientific things unless it is merely a hypothesis.