If it's forbidden here you could forbid the import.

Like why is it OK to buy shoes made from child slaves but I can't open my very own sweatshop here. That's unfair competition!

Measure vldl next time. More important risk factor than ldl.

The problem is that such thinking comes from theory and theory always has to make way for reality.

2020 a study was published that showed that in type 2 diabetics the ones who reported to using sweetener all had a higher fasting glucose : insulin ratio.

Now if you check the data then most of the type 2 diabetic people without artificial sugar cosumption had a ratio of below 4.5 (which is the cutoff for insulin resistance [weird data for diabetics but maybe their meds are working]) and all below 10.
While the other group hmwas generally higher and many above 10.
So either that data is super convincing or faked, for the sugar lobby this wouldn't be the first time.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7014832/

Besides the glucose dependent insulin response of the pancreas there are other Pathways too. Many hormones modulate the response.

Bottom line is I guess if you take normal people who consume lots of fake sugar and check their insulin resistance they will show no signs of it. Maybe ask your doc at the next check up to do insulin too and check the ratio. Or check your hunger levels and see how you respond.

Anyways I consumed tons of it and sugar doesn't taste good anymore so I take that as a triple win. If I had a slightly worse (not near pathological) level of insulin resistance in that time then I was totally right not caring about fake sugar consumption.

Also insulin is misunderstood. People look at t1 diabetics and what happens of they use too much insulin to make conclusions about that hormone, this of course is the wrong approach. If you eat and insulin puts glucose into your cells you will be satiated. Usually this correlates with the amount of insulin.

The hunger problem after an insulin spike comes from the sugar (sugar like sugar not blood glucose) blocking leptin signaling in the brain.

No. If the hens are fed the wrong stuff they just taste bad.

VLDL is the better marker!

Also one should exclude all patients with elevated lipoprotein A from such studies. Overall it's the best marker but you can't really act upon the result.

Should be 1 bet per game, everything but a betting directly on a number.

Splitting a number or 4 is OK, going for red or so too.

Think of a 37 Sided dice.

Mathematical chance vs real life

1/2 and 1/4 + 1/4 would be the same chance, as are 10 dice vs 10 rolls of 1 dice. But I am not here for math, it's about reality.
You know the guys in your simulation all had the same odds. I wanna improve the overall odds, a method where more people would win.

And if you consider real life end points;

• like if you play til you win. This could happen on roll 11 of the singular dice, but for the 10 rolls it must be the 20. So the payout is lowered by 9 bets.

If you already won 17k you may decide to keep on playing til you win or lose 2k.

Or you start with 7k, stop playing once you hit 2k.

These situations are real, you know the overall chance to win at 50 spins is the same but you won't play exactly 50 spins.

In the simulation/real life there must be some super lucky gamblers, those win more often by pure chance and that should happen slightly more often in a group of people playing only 1 number vs people playing 2/3/../17 numbers at once.

*and of course much more often in groups playing better odds than only numbers.

Yeah one is always an idiot when playing but losing 5 bucks on a roulette table is fun. 30-100 bucks is fair price for a fun evening. I just want the most bang for my bucks.

Did you run it with a
payout of 35 or 36?
Normal table or double zero?

Cool simulation!

If you multiply the chance to win by the payout you get something like 0.97 For all bets except on numbers where it's 0.95.
Obviously this assumes a normal table not the scam double zero table.

Anyways could you please run it while they bet on red instead of numbers only?

Some roulette logic:

For every dollar you throw in (without stupid stuff like betting on 18+ numbers at once or red+black) you get 94.6 or 97.3 cents back.

(1/37) × 35 = 0.945 number
(12/37) x 3 = 0.973 one third
(18/37) x 2 = 0.973 one half (red / black / even / odd)
(2/37) x 17 = 0.97 splitting a number
... = 0.97 splitting 3 numbers
...

At 1 number the payout is only 35 instead of the 36 you should be getting. And the dealer pressures you into giving 1 bet as tip... so the average payout is only 92 cents.

Anyways could you run something else for me too?

What I wanna see is how to maximize the chance for not playing like an idiot.

Like is betting on only 1 number superior to 2? To 16? To 25? Is the switch really at 18?
Like 17 numbers at once should be the same average payout as 1, while starting at 19 it should become lower til it you go full crazy and bet on all 37.

What about number 1 + red vs #1 + black? Imo 1 n red should be better but apparently it's the same.

Is red only better than red + last 1/3

Or is #1, red, odd, first 1/3 less stupid than #1, black, even, last 1/3?

My math friend says it doesn't matter but it's so unintuitive to me.

Split brain patients. Some cool experiments with fascinating results to be seen there.