Get Even More Visitors To Your Blog, Upgrade To A Business Listing >>

Re: Turbogenius and gambler's fallacy

I'll give an example of what Turbo is saying. He gives enough information to make it quite clear, without giving the precise betting progression.

Basically he says you'll never see this in 37 spins (no repeats in 37 spins):

What he doesn't understand is the above combination has exactly the same probability as this:

It's only slightly different, but "looks" more natural.

He's basically saying you can bet that you will never see no repeats. So his approach is basically the same as the "law of a third".

As Mike correctly pointed out, all that matters is the NEXT spin. You cannot change the odds by looking at a sequence of random spins. There is no "sequence". It is just random. The odds are always the same, and the payouts are always the same. No progression or bet size will ever change that. Many of his comments are complete contradictions he's obviously not even aware of.

Anyway unfortunately I don't have time to explain more of his mistakes to him. Again Turbo, when other people tell you why you're wrong, don't blame it on me and my computers like you did in the above quotes. I have nothing to do with what other people say to you. They have their own brains. I have no idea why you brought me into it.

This post first appeared on Roulette Forum .CC - Index, please read the originial post: here

Share the post

Re: Turbogenius and gambler's fallacy


Subscribe to Roulette Forum .cc - Index

Get updates delivered right to your inbox!

Thank you for your subscription