Quote from: Akka on September 26, 2013, 08:20:17 AM

Well, just no. If you played at 49,5%, statistically and probably your next roll will be a loss 50,5% of the Time. Like every roll of you was before. There is no "memory". Whats so hard to understand about that?

Statistik and probability like this only work when you look in the future.

The probability for loosing 6 Times in a row is ~1,65%, but if you already have lost 6 Times in a row it is still ~1,65% for loosing even another 6 Times in a row.

First, since you are not aware, I don't play 50%. I play 87.7779%. I was the only one, then a few people copied me.

In this particular case, the next roll is sure to be an 87.7779% chance of winning, however I contend that it would be more than 99% chance of winning.

Here's my "memory". 3 variables. 2 are exactly the same. 1 changes a bit. Literally. (okay, it changes a digit sometimes, so it's not just a bit, but a byte.)

Also, if looking at the future, I can see the odds of 6 times in a row before it happens, what changes as it is happening? Just pretend we're back 6 rolls ago. The same statistic. Why does it change when I've already lost 5?

Quote from: Rampion on September 26, 2013, 07:33:51 AM

Wow. You simply do not understand gamblers fallacy and you created a "gambling security"? Please tell me that nobody ever invested in it.

Secondly, you cannot explain the patterns you spot because there are no patterns.

Uh... Okay, I won't tell you that 6 people invested in it, and about 14 people "subscribed" to my updates while the martingale run was going on. I gave updates every 50,000 rolls out of the 1.3 million rolls, which was roughly about every other day. I only play when I am online and awake even though I use a bot to automate the bet. The bot is custom made and changes the bet based on instructions I give it, based on perceived patterns that it detects that I think means something, whether or not it actually means anything.

I took about 6 BTC from 6 people, and made it climb to 11 BTC in about 2 weeks. So we each lost 1 BTC when it busted. I'm not a whale, so no one paid any attention.

Secondly, I can not explain the patterns, but not because there are no patterns. Just because you can't spot it, doesn't mean it is not there.

As someone else explained, pi has a pattern. It looks like there is none. 3.1415926 ... I can tell you the next million digits.

e has a pattern. It looks like there is none. 2.7182818284 ... I can tell you the next million digits.

1.414213562373095048801 = square root of 2. I can tell you the next million digits.
1.732050807568877 = square root of 3. I can tell you the next million digits.
0.57721566490153286 = EulerMascheroni constant. I can tell you the next million digits.

My just-dice account. I can tell you the past 1.3 million rolls. It already happened. I will attempt to tell you the next million rolls, but I can't exactly do that. No one can see a pattern. Does not mean it is not there. Does not mean it is there.

Yes, I understand Gambler's Fallacy. It is the fallacy of the maturity of chances. It is the mistaken belief that if something happens more frequently than normal during some period, then it will happen less frequently in the future. In situations where what is being observed is truly random (i.e. independent trials of a random process), this belief, though appealing to the human mind, is false.

The key here is that we are not looking at true random numbers. We are looking at the results of a deterministic process that takes as input random numbers, where the deterministic process is repeated exactly the same except for 1 bit.

That process has also been shown to output a uniform distribution of results.

It took awhile, but eventually someone figured out how to predict the next million numbers from a Mersenne Twister given a minimum set of numbers in the sequence.