Not the Grail, just a regular one - Bablokos!!! - page 79
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
Elisabeth, the results, please. :)
In a separate thread please, with her results and all her other rubbish.
Vlads, the process has absolutely NO NEED for EQUALITY for the simple reason that neither the process, nor you yourself know where the point of this very EQUALITY is. You do not have any point that is superior to the others, simply because each new point is the start of a new sequence (as well as the continuation of an old one)...
well, the point is up to the person to choose which one he wants....
And here's to the balance.
reply
Now let's talk about the tape measure. It is known that the roulette distribution is uniformly discrete. For simplicity we take red/black.
Theoretical probability of falling out red 0.5.
A practical series of 100 rolls showed that red fell out 55 times, black 45. What is the probability that the next time red will fall out? Is it still 0.5? Yes! But this is a static theoretical probability that takes into account only the Law of Distribution.
And the dynamic probability cannot be 0.5 because in that case we have a contradiction with the Law of Distribution. The dynamic probability of falling red must be less than 0.5. Only in this case will the series sooner or later fit the law of the distribution. Obviously, for the case of normal distribution, dynamic probability of red must be calculated as (100-55)/100=0.45. Then, the dynamical probability of black is 0.55.
Here again the classic mistake some people make... DON'T PUT THE CART BEFORE THE HORSE (!!!). IT IS NOT THE SERIES THAT HAS TO FIT INTO THE "LAW" OF THE DISTRIBUTION, BUT THE DISTRIBUTION FUNCTION THAT DESCRIBES THE RESULTS (!!!) WITH SOME DEGREE OF PRECISION. The roulette ball didn't give a damn about any distribution from the highest bell. And the next time you roll it, it will fall out the way it wants to.
And then, you won't deny that there is no pattern to the appearance of the DIFFERENT PRIORITY SIGNS on the SB
Here again the classic mistake some people make... DON'T PUT THE CART BEFORE THE HORSE (!!!). IT IS NOT THE SERIES THAT HAS TO FIT INTO THE "LAW" OF THE DISTRIBUTION, BUT THE DISTRIBUTION FUNCTION THAT DESCRIBES THE RESULTS (!!!) WITH SOME DEGREE OF PRECISION. The roulette ball didn't give a damn about any distribution from the highest bell. And the next time you roll it, it will fall out the way it wants to.
the main point about balance/disbalance was above the green letters (I added there).
the basic idea of equilibrium/unbalance was above the green letters (I added there).
I've read it.
But, do you really know such a "LAW", according to which the ball in the casino keeps track of previous results and considers it a matter of honour to RESTORE EQUALITY...? Not just any point, but the one you consider as the starting point...?
ALL THE EFFECTS YOU SO RELY ON (distribution, patterns of adversity, gannah, etc...) - HAVE A PURPLE STATISTIC PROCEEDING (!!!). And none of the previous results have ANY "leverage" to influence the future result. (this is the LAW - more realistic)
And here's to equilibrium.
It's all a delusion, an attempt to wishful thinking. What kind of "dynamic probability" is this? The author has invented a new term and is dancing around it. There is no dynamic probability. There is a probability of throw (spin) and there is a probability of n throws (spins). There is no third one.
I've read it.
But, do you really know such a "LAW", according to which the ball in the casino keeps track of previous results and considers it a matter of honour to RESTORE EQUALITY...? Not just any point, but the one you consider as the starting point...?
ALL EFFECTS YOU SO RELY ON (distribution, patterns of adverse, ganna, etc...) - HAVE A Pure STATISTICAL PROCESS (!!!). And none of the previous results have ANY "leverage" to influence the future result. (this is the LAW - more realistic).
fuck, what the fuck does a ball have to do with it, it's long been understood that the ball/coin doesn't give a shit and there's a 50/50 chance on each of its passes.
We are talking about a series. You yourself were talking about the series, here attributed a ball with a single shot... (((((((((.
The post about patterns and their non-linear and illogical nature of appearances and formations apparently you haven't understood....
Say, we have 20 eagle patterns, right. I guess it is logical to think that in any situation where we have 20 eagle patterns, we should expect tails to appear at some variation, right.
BUT in the long run, the number of such appearances of tails after 20 heads equals the number of nonappearances, or will be greater or less.
Imagine now that there are thousands of such games, and on each such game we wait for 20 eagles and start playing tails. But we play until either we get tails (we win) or another 20 heads (we lose). So on one row such a game is of course utopia, and can go both in minus and plus on the final selection.
It is necessary to have many different games (rows) in order to skip gracefully from results of one row to results of another row. It is necessary to take the plus in one row, leave without waiting for the minus/not being constantly in the game, leave for another row with the same conditions, but we have one row, so from this row it is necessary to take out on each counting such contracts which satisfy the given conditions, they can be absolutely not connected and not break mathematics and tervers in particular, because can be not logically explainable in connections, but nevertheless have an empirical substantiation.