Keith the selection process is no good? You show me another strategy with a minumum strike rate of approx 66% that has a losing limit rarely breached. Im WAITING...
Please do not put words into my posts that never existed - that's bad.
What I said was, (and it's only one post above your misquote), your selection process is
no better than [insert any other selection process here]. I also said that according to probability, any selection process will produce a winner, but it is based on luck. That's fact, and we're not going to argue it. A person's beliefs can ignore facts, and that's what you're choosing to do here for your argument's sake. You
believe your selection process has some sort of relevance to the outcome, but it does not. You're arguing beliefs, and I'm siding with facts (as they are inarguable). Anyone who tries to argue with a zealot bent on their beliefs will end up as frustrated as we are at this point. Another fact is, zealot beliefs > facts, no matter how backwards and counter-productive that may be.
Every time you see your selection hit for a win, your belief system is reinforced further, and you become further deeply embedded into the "Gambler's Fallacy" of thinking a random event has become 'overdue', due to it not making an appearance over x number of events.
At some point, you simply will have to come back down to Earth and calm down. Dozens are not special. You can apply the same logic to any other groupings, just adjust the algorithm for the increase or decrease in number of numbers in the group, and you will have similar results.
On one hand, I consider you a bit over exuberant about random events being anything but random. You've gone one step further and suggested that a sub-set of random events is even less random than the other random sub-sets within the game. We're quickly leaving the realm of zealot and approaching bloody mad. There's nothing further to discuss here, lest we just end up repeating what's already been bantered.
Good day, sir
- Keith