As I have said no one wants to find a method to predict the next number to come to an event X, after a T-zero, or even after a million times that number did not come out.
It 's impossible.
I join the chorus of skeptics saying that every lot number, roulette, as well as each side of the coin just before an event has the same opportunities as other numbers either side.
It 's impossible.
I join the chorus of skeptics saying that every lot number, roulette, as well as each side of the coin just before an event has the same opportunities as other numbers either side.
In fact we are not always thinking at the time an event, but a population of events.
We're not guessing a number, but trying to figure out how to involve a series of numbers. And the more the series is about the size of the randomness tends to "dim", crushed under the weight of the "Law of Large Numbers."
Just to see if it works yet tried to extract (also from atmospheric noise) 8 series of random numbers from 1 to 100 (50.5 average): 10, 100, 500, and see how it evolves, the average numbers generated
Just to see if it works yet tried to extract (also from atmospheric noise) 8 series of random numbers from 1 to 100 (50.5 average): 10, 100, 500, and see how it evolves, the average numbers generated
Bernulli can rest quiet in his grave.
Back to the series, and we see in a binomial distribution (red / black, head / cross, etc. ..) by taking a population of 100 elements and analyzing the probability that a combination bait 100 times, 99 times, 98 and so on.
But what a beautiful bell! What does this graph? That when faced with a population of elements, the probability that the number of outputs to equilibrate more or less homogeneously between the two possible values \u200b\u200bis much higher than the probability that the result is already only moderately biased towards a single value.
Now, back to the theory called the "Fallacy of the gambler, very well explained by wikipedia:
The gambler's fallacy can be illustrated taking the example of the repeated toss of a coin. Using a coin free of irregularities, the chances of getting head is exactly T = 0.5 (one in two), to obtain two consecutive T is 0.5 * 0.5 = 0.25 (one in four), to obtain three consecutive T is 0.5 * 0.5 * 0.5 = 0125 (one in eight), and so on.
Now suppose we have achieved four consecutive head. An individual victim of the gambler's fallacy might say, "If the next time you head out, there would be a succession of five times when heads. The probability of a sequence of five consecutive tests is (1 / 2) 5 = 1 / 32, therefore, the next attempt is a probability of only 1 to 32 of heads. "
This is a false reasoning. If money is regular, by definition, the probability of C = Cross must always be 0.5, never higher (or lower), and the probability of heads must always be 0.5, never less (or more). While the probability of a sequence of five consecutive tests is only 1 in 32, this applies only before the first coin toss. After the first four launches of the results are no longer unknown, so are not counted. The probability of five consecutive tests is the same for four consecutive tests followed by a cross. The fact that Cross is not come out more likely. In fact, the calculation of the probability of 1 to 32 was based on the assumption that Heads or Tails are equally probable in each test. Each of the two possible events has a probability identical regardless of the number of times that the coin was launched previously and independently the results have already occurred. Believe that in the next jump is more likely to come out head based on the Cross rather than the previous releases is a mistake. The error is in the idea that they were lucky in the past somehow influences the development of future trials.
not flawless but I repeat: this is not to predict a future event based on past events but to predict the final outcome of a series of events, all in the future.
return to reality: if the bet doubling on a finite sequence of five extractions are likely to lose 1 to 32, and this is good news. The bad news is that in that case I would lose € 62, compared with:
16 out of 32 chance of winning after having played 4 2 and then go to +2
8 chance of winning eight of 32 after having played six and then go to 4 +2
probability to win 32 of 16 after having played 14 and then go to 2 +2
chance to win 32 of 32 after having played 30 and then go to +2
a chance to win 32 of 64 after having played 62 and then go to 2
a chance as we said at the beginning (and assuming to impose a limit of five games) to never win, and lose everything and then played a total of until then.
The question then to ask is: we want to play not once but 5 times with a chance of losing 32 to € 62 compared to 31 out of 32 chance to win 2?
not sure, but it's more of a pure random event.
The answer to the original question but if it's worth playing with their fingers crossed in one hand, and in the results of the spreadsheet is: "Yes, yes and again yes, but it is clear: not to win but to play with more awareness!
