Some things ARE more likely than others !

Possibly it is an IQ test. Who do you think failed ?

To quote the King...

They gave him an IQ test and it came back negative!

I'm pretty sure his entire theory is based on the assumption that "in real life" if the first two spins are in one of his nine columns, the probability of the third and the fourth spins both being in the remaining two numbers in that column is far less than 1/9.

It's obvious that he (or, for all I know, she) is sticking to his point no matter how much mathematics and statistics we dig up.

Quote: scepticus

Quote: ThatDonGuy

Huh? The third and fourth numbers in any column happen 1/9 of the time regardless of the first two numbers - random pretty much ensures that. The wheel doesn't remember what the previous two numbers were.

By that reasoning, Martingale "works" if you throw enough money into it. With a maximum bet that is 1024 times the minimum bet, it only collapses every 1165 times. True, you lose 2047 times your original bet, which more than erases your 1164 other wins, but "you should live so long", right?

The wheel is an inanimate object so it cannot have a memory so that's a rather idiotic statement to make and why it has currency is only because it sounds " knowledgeable".
If there is a guarantee of 3 from four it means that some things can happen while some others cannot so your belief that all the 3rd bets and 4th bets all have the same chance is misplaced.
Our main point of difference is that you believe that a disadvantage means that we will lose at some future, unspecified date while I dispute your certainty. I preach uncertainty not certainty which is why I admit that I guess. Claiming to know
the future with certainty is in the province of clairvoyants , not probability theory which only deals with likliehood.
And you haven't explained why you gamble knowing that you must lose "eventually " just as you claim that I will.
And I only make flat bets so why do you think I bet progressives/regressives ?

HEY! Don't be calling people idiotic, or otherwise trample their statements with nasty comments, when they are attempting to help you especially if their analogies would be apt to describe your own lack of mental acuity. I have read this entire thread. You are using a betting system with absolutely no merit. Your ideas to support it show a lack of understanding in mathematics. That is completely within your rights, and it is good for us who profit from gambling, because without people like you, casinos would be much more worried about us. However, you are the one who wished to discuss this matter and asked for input. If you are so sure about your theories, go get rich off your system.

Quote: AxiomOfChoice

Is this serious or a bad troll?

There are 81 ways of 4 being correct in 4spins of the wheel so it is less likely that one of my nine will be the winner even if the first three are correct .
I believe so - you guys don't.
Never the twain shall meet.
'bye !

Quote: scepticus

I believe so - you guys don't.
Never the twain shall meet.
'bye !

Thank you OP, I hope you enjoyed your stay.

I nominate this thread for the Double-Talk, Mumbo Jumbo Hall of Fame.

Quote: gpac1377

Thank you OP, I hope you enjoyed your stay.

I nominate this thread for the Double-Talk, Mumbo Jumbo Hall of Fame.

I am honored to second that nomination !

Quote: gpac1377

Thank you OP, I hope you enjoyed your stay.

I nominate this thread for the Double-Talk, Mumbo Jumbo Hall of Fame.

It will have a hard time topping the crap in the baccarat forums.

I still don't even understand what he was saying. He correctly notes that there are 81 possible sequences and then somehow concludes that they are not all equally likely. I have no idea where this erroneous leap of faith came from.

Quote: AxiomOfChoice

I still don't even understand what he was saying.

For a while I thought maybe it was my lack of reading comprehension, but clearly there's no dialogue in this thread because the OP only talks, he doesn't listen.

Quote: AxiomOfChoice

I still don't even understand what he was saying. He correctly notes that there are 81 possible sequences and then somehow concludes that they are not all equally likely. I have no idea where this erroneous leap of faith came from.

Here's what I think he was saying:
If you look at his original list of 9 columns of 4 numbers, each row represents a spin, and each number represents 12 numbers (e.g. 1 is 1-12; 2 is 13-24; 3 is 25-36). One column is guaranteed to have at least three bets win. His strategy was:
(a) Wait for two spins, and note which dozens they were in; each pair of dozens appears in exactly one column. (For example, if both spins are in the first 12, use the first column, since it starts with "1-1"; if the first spin is in the second dozen and the second is in the third, use the sixth column, which starts with "2-3".)
(b) Bet 1 on the two dozens other than the one in the third row of the column in (a). (For example, if the first two spins are both in the first dozen, use column 1; the third number is 2, so bet 1 on the first dozen and 1 on the third dozen.)
(c) If the third spin is in the dozen you didn't bet on, then the first column is the one column with the three (or more) wins, so start over again.
(d) If the third spin is in one of the two dozens you didn't bet, then bet 3 on the fourth number in that column.

I think his reasoning was, there were four possible ways that the "guaranteed three wins" can happen:
(1) The first three spins all win;
(2) The first, second, and fourth spins all win;
(3) The first, third, and fourth spins all win;
(4) The second, third, and fourth spins all win.
If #2 is correct, then you win 1 chip on your first bet, and 6 more on your second bet
Otherwise, you will lose 2 chips (either losing 2 on your first bet, or winning 1 on your first bet and losing 3 on your second)
His assumption was that 1,2,3,4 were equally likely, so the EV was 1/4 x (+7) + 3/4 x (-2) = +1/4
In fact, they are - if you ignore the possibility that all four spins will win. If you wait until two spins have been done, then each of the four possibilities remains in two columns and "all four win," which is also a -2 result, is in the remaining column. When you include that possibility, the EV is 0. However, he insisted that "in reality" this would happen far less than 1/9 of the time. (Never mind that, later, he agreed that there are 81 possible combinations for the four spins, and there are 9 combinations in the original 9 columns, so obviously there's a 1/9 chance that one of them will have all four spins win.)