Why Probability Does Not Matter

[Bayes]

Are you joking? Everyone? None of you will ever put in the time, don't make me laugh. If someone is smart enough to master EG, he's certainly smart enough to keep the details to himself. You don't even believe its possible, who are you kidding..

Ditto for AP. But, the difference with AP is that there is a valid principle which no-one can dispute (physics does determine where the ball will land). Whether you believe that this is irrelevant because no opportunities exist these days isn't the point; you can't argue with the principle. On the other hand, in EG (splutter), there is no logic or empirical evidence that past spins can be read such that your choices beat expectation. Your only principle ('balance') is a fallacy. In fact,  EG puts the cart before the horse.

[Bayes]

You don't even believe its possible, who are you kidding..

You don't need to believe it's possible to try it. Noble Savage has tried it, I've tried it, but apparently we were both doing it wrong! We'll see how bombus fares. 

If every member on this forum gave EG a decent trial, and none of them had success (not even a little bit) then you would say they were either doing it wrong or were quitters. You keep saying 'you can't prove that it doesn't work', but this is like a believer saying 'you can't prove that God doesn't exist'. Correct, but that is no evidence that he does. If you can't falsify a claim, then it's meaningless.

[Spike!]

Your only principle ('balance') is a fallacy.>>>

Yup, every bet I make violates some form of gamblers fallacy. I posted a bunch of them the other day and I violate every one in every session I play. Conciously, willingly.

>>and none of them had success (not even a little bit) then you would say they were either doing it wrong>>

I sure as heck wouldn't say it was ME who was doing it wrong.  From the very first time I played by accident, I expected to win using past spins. You and the others expected to lose when you tried it. Self fulfilling expecttions, I'd say.

[Mr J]

"Not every wheel is going to be playable, you have to find them first - what a drag! No gambler wants to work that hard" >>> Thats not even the BEGINNING of the nightmare. Then, after many many many weeks of searching, lets say you find ONE that is a bit off.

They (casino) may replace/repair it at 4am, how would you know? Oh thats right, find a little scratch on it (write that down) so you know. Lets say you notice, it IS a different wheel. Now what? Back to SEARCHING again? Not to mention, hopefully you live in an area (LV, AC etc) where there are PLENTY of casinos/wheels to choose from! What a joke. I said it before, it all looks good on paper, in theory, thats all.  Ken

[gizmotron]

... Your only principle ('balance') is a fallacy.

Not to me. I get balance for each spin when I ignore the zeros, when they appear to be sleeping, and I bet on 18 numbers with equal sized bets at the same time. I also get balance by winning two bets of 24 numbers while losing one time on the other 12, again by ignoring the zeros when they are sleeping and equal sized bets. I also play 26 numbers when the zeros are not sleeping. My form of balance comes from basic arithmetic. I don't seek balance (correction) in my guessing. I seek to find what is currently happening. That is a circumstance that is revealed in its completeness on the next spin's result, and only then. Correction is only one way of noticing and describing either change or direction. It doesn't really matter if it is because of some belief in correction or force of balance believed in. What matters is seeing it happen. A person comes up with their own vocabulary to describe the characteristics of randomness.

BTW, last year Herb said there is no such thing as characteristics of randomness. Now even the mathboyz that have tried EG have all demonstrated that even they can relate to these characteristics. Funny how time erodes even the most basic terms of disagreement.

[Spike!]

>>BTW, last year Herb said there is no such thing as characteristics of randomness. Now even the mathboyz that have tried EG have all demonstrated that even they can relate to these characteristics. Funny how time erodes even the most basic terms of disagreement.>>

Ya, Herb knows everything (just ask him) until he learns a little more, then he knows everything even better. Especially Gamblers Fallacy, he REALLY knows about that.. LOL!

[Spike!]

This is very interesting:

{Probability theory cannot legitimately be applied to any real life situation. Probability theory may only be applied to infinite samples, which may only be found in one complete set at infinity. You can't dissect infinity into periods of time or sets of samples to suit real life. There is no "long run". There is no convergence toward infinity. There are only infinite and single occurences. Probability theory deals with the infinite ONLY, while real life deals in single occurrences. The real life chance of winning a bet in a casino, then, is always even. You either win or you lose (or you push). Anything else is pure superstition disguised as "science".}

I agree with this. It explains exactly why HG works.

[Bayes]

I'd like to know where you got that quote from.

It's hogwash. Probability is used every day in samples far from infinite. And anyway, there is no such thing as 'infinite', it's a purely mathematical term without meaning in the real world.

Nice try, but no cigar...

[Noble Savage]

I'd like to know where you got that quote from.

It's hogwash.

I thought so too.

[Kelly]

Have you noticed how spike is getting further and further away from reality as the years go by ? I don`t know, maybe we should call someone. His wife maybe. I think it could be serious.

[Noble Savage]

I think it could be serious.

I was just thinking it could be serious. I should probably stop making fun of him.

[mistarlupo]

You guys don't understand. You're all fooled by the probability theory. Just ignore it.

[Spike!]

There are two "probabilities": one, looking forward, and dealing with the potential results of single events; and another, looking back, and dealing with the results of single events. You can't take the concept of probability, calculating what the probability WAS of a set of past events taking place, and apply it to real future events. Probability lives in the past, it cannot effect single events in the future.

[Jakkalsdraai]

YYYAAAAAAAWWWWNNNN!   

[Noble Savage]

Probability (noun) - a measure of how likely it is that some event will occur; a number expressing the ratio of favorable cases to the whole number of cases possible; "the probability that an unbiased coin will fall with the head up is 0.5"

[Noble Savage]

-