I posted this for The General (aka countless names and aliases) on the other forum -
Maybe you want to take a shot at it.
It's roulette related, don't worry.
======================
This might force you to go against everything you believe in lol.
Here's the question -
3 horses are in a race - they all start at the same time - except...
they each run randomly.
Meaning - their speed isn't predictable at all, it can change every step of the race.
A horse could run fast, slow, not move.....who knows ???? But each horse runs the
race in this manner randomly.
One horse wins the race (eventually of course) - where do the other two horses finish ?
Here's some possible answers, or use your own...
1) They all finish equally at the same moment
2) One horse finishes and the other two trail behind about 1/3 of the way back
3) One horse finishes and the 2nd place horse is around 1/3 of the way back, the last place horse is about 1/3 of the way back from the 2nd place horse
4) Some other answer
5) I don't know anything about how random works, stop bothering me
I have a follow up question, if you decide to answer this one... and it just might change your
mind about everything you think you believe about random.
(link:s://s18.postimg.org/4pn6baqvt/giphy.gif)
===========================
Take a shot at it - maybe you'll have a better reply to it than he "did" (so far).
Lets hope they leave the spaceships out. ::)
4) we cant know if they 1/3 behind...they might be right on his tail?
Just like hotties...one might start fast but freezes for a long time....so it get passed by the others
:-[
Quote3 horses are in a race - they all start at the same time
is race track straight line or circle... :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:
Go to link:://rextester.com/l/pascal_online_compiler, remove the default code in the editor and replace it with the code below :
var
h1, h2, h3, dist, i : byte;
begin
randomize;
while (h1 < 24) and (h2 < 24) and (h3 < 24) do begin
dist := random(3);
case dist of
0 : inc(h1);
1 : inc(h2);
2 : inc(h3);
end;
end;
writeln;write(h1:3,' ');
for i := 1 to h1 do write('*');
writeln;write(h2:3,' ');
for i := 1 to h2 do write('*');
writeln;write(h3:3,' ');
for i := 1 to h3 do write('*');
writeln;
end.
Then press F8 or click the "run it button" over and over to see how far back from the winner the other 2 "horses" are. Are there any patterns?
A real time simulation would be better because then you could see things like how often the horse which first takes the lead remains in the lead.
4)All we know is the other 2 horses are between the starting point and the end of the race(-1). But we can't predict how far they have gone.
Quote from: vladir on Apr 08, 04:25 PM 20184)All we know is the other 2 horses are between the starting point and the end of the race(-1). But we can't predict how far they have gone.
But we can. On average the two losing horses will be around the same places when the winner crosses the finish line. I was hoping Steve (or the General) would tell me where... understanding random would make the answer simple.
Ok I'll play.
Quote from: TurboGenius on Apr 08, 10:31 AM 2018One horse wins the race (eventually of course) - where do the other two horses finish ?
Possibilities I see are:
1. One or more horses finished equal first
2. Half way down the track, the two losing horse starting humping. Maybe still are. They were disqualified.
3. One got hit by a low-flying plane and propelled it past the finish line first, but was disqualified.
4. One got really, really excited about law enforcement.
(link:://:.pichost.org/images/2018/04/08/temp_321327.png) (link:://:.pichost.org/image/sT9d0)
The most probable, given history of horse races is the other two horses finished the race, and came in second and third place respectively, at different times. We don't know times. We can estimate based on past performance but this is not an exact answer. Only precise timings will give an exact answer.
If you give more specific parameters, I could give a more specific response.
I don't see your point. You have given undefined variables and asked for the possibilities. Based on what you've said of possibilities in roulette, you're probably going to say it correlates to the expectation that a 3-repeater comes after 2-repeater, and so on.
And if a horse did that to me, I would punch it in its dick. It's just not on. Could you imagine the jokes from fellow officers...
"Hey Officer Smith, how is your doughnut this morning?"
Lots of potential..
Quote from: Steve on Apr 08, 07:43 PM 2018I don't see your point. You have given undefined variables and asked for the possibilities. Based on what you've said of possibilities in roulette, you're probably going to say it correlates to the expectation that a 3-repeater comes after 2-repeater, and so on.
It has nothing to do with repeaters at all - and nothing to do with horse racing.
Just random and how it's predictable.
I didn't ask when or how the other two horses would cross the finish line.
I asked when the winner wins - where are the other two horses typically (or "on average") on the track. It's a math calculation and easy to figure out if someone understands random.
If someone doesn't - then I can't expect them to know the answer.
It can however be used in roulette (or course) because just like my question above, we have random outcomes in which each horse could be a set of locations that appear completely randomly and independent from the last spin - yet are completely predictable.
Quote from: TurboGenius on Apr 08, 07:54 PM 2018Just random and how it's predictable.
Random basically means unpredictable. So first you need to change your definitions.
But to be accurate, nothing is ever completely unpredictable or without cause. Everything is just cause and effect. In the context of RNG, usually the numbers are from algorithms which sometimes are predictable. Usually they aren't predictable, at least with any method we know.
But that's another story. Your approaches don't change the odds because repeaters dont change the odds. Proper testing proves this. I've done my own tests and besides my tests, it is well known.
Quote from: TurboGenius on Apr 08, 07:54 PM 2018I asked when the winner wins - where are the other two horses typically (or "on average") on the track
Somewhere between the start and finish line.
Quote from: TurboGenius on Apr 08, 07:54 PM 2018It can however be used in roulette (or course) because just like my question above, we have random outcomes in which each horse could be a set of locations that appear completely randomly and independent from the last spin - yet are completely predictable.
No you cant, because you are talking about a very large number of possibilities. And in the end you are still left with the same accuracy.
You previously mentioned things like 4 repeats comes after 3 repeats and so on..... as if it had any meaning. But a simple test proves the odds don't change after 3 or 4 repeaters. I explained it already. Anyone can do the test and see they are stuck with 1 in 37.
Let's not dance around the issue. You can only make a reasonable guess about where the horse are, but it is very different to roulette in "predicting random/RNG" because you dont have any reference points. You need reference points and correlation. Exactly what are you getting at?
if you get distance from winner to second horse and distance from second horse to last horse then sum of distances should come to 0.38888 of whole track...just a guess :xd: :xd:
Quote from: CoderJoe on Apr 08, 03:29 PM 2018Go to link:://rextester.com/l/pascal_online_compiler, remove the default code in the editor and replace it with the code below :
That is perfect. I would give you 10 extra likes if I could !
Easier than doing it each time with the calculation by hand as I was doing
just to verify the exact value.
When I compared mine to yours one value was exact and the other was
off less than .04 so they would have balanced out during more samples
as I was using averages.
Nicely done.
Cheers.
Quote from: Steve on Apr 08, 08:08 PM 2018Let's not dance around the issue. You can only make a reasonable guess about where the horse are, but it is very different to roulette in "predicting random/RNG" because you dont have any reference points. You need reference points and correlation.
No, the horses will be "on average" in specific places when the winning horse crosses the finish line. Perfect ? Nope, doesn't need to be.
And did you know - you can make "reference points" in a random game ? You can.
Quote from: TurboGenius on Apr 08, 08:53 PM 2018No, the horses will be "on average" in specific places when the winning horse crosses the finish line. Perfect ?
You mean like a bell curve? That doesnt work in roulette. It's no different to waiting for 55% more reds than blacks to spin, then betting red... because we expect things to average out.
Quote from: TurboGenius on Apr 08, 08:53 PM 2018And did you know - you can make "reference points" in a random game ? You can.
Any reference point that has no predictability in the equation will nullify an increase in accuracy.
So exactly what is your point? That there will be a long term "balance" that we can depend on?
You still arent changing the odds at all.
The first is the one who knows a shortcut.
The third, by running a few metres before quitting, thinks is the true winner.
The second runs a few metres, goes home and returns 18 hours later.
Quote from: Steve on Apr 08, 08:59 PM 2018So exactly what is your point? That there will be a long term "balance" that we can depend on?
There is almost never a balance in anything random.
There is though a predictable difference between where the winning horse crosses
the finish line and where the 2nd and 3rd place horse are at that point.
So once you know this - if you ever do (there's a tester right in this thread now) you'll
have to wonder - if horse "A" is 50 feet from the finish line and the other two horses trail behind where random says they will be - would you put your money on the lead horse to win ?
Of course you would. It's predictable.
The exact same thing happens with random numbers being drawn in roulette... but I'm thinking that's not worth getting into. A few readers get it, that makes the thread worthwhile in my opinion.
Seriously, so on average the second and third places will be distant from the first for one and two thirds of the tracks length. OK, that still only defines the PLACES, not the actual horses. The first place can and will be ANY horse. Because the racetrack being fair to all the competitors means they all will finish in first, second and third for about the same number if times. Worse, place changing can happen during session and the favourite gets relegated to third while the underdog wins.
Worst, they all waste 37 portions of ration to finish the race but the prize is only 36.
Quote from: TurboGenius on Apr 09, 06:59 AM 2018
There is almost never a balance in anything random.
There is though a predictable difference between where the winning horse crosses
the finish line and where the 2nd and 3rd place horse are at that point.
So once you know this - if you ever do (there's a tester right in this thread now) you'll
have to wonder - if horse "A" is 50 feet from the finish line and the other two horses trail behind where random says they will be - would you put your money on the lead horse to win ?
Of course you would. It's predictable.
The exact same thing happens with random numbers being drawn in roulette... but I'm thinking that's not worth getting into. A few readers get it, that makes the thread worthwhile in my opinion.
For short sprints, the lead horse makes every post a winning one is possible.
Long distance races, lead horse normally punctures 3furlongs out. Frankel 2000 guineas is the best example of superb front running victory. :thumbsup:
Turbo, would you mind giving us the spins of this ? :)
Cheers
bet 25 on the 2x, 50 on the 3x, 100 on the 4x... never mind if the 4x never shows up, just double the bankroll and quit while ahead 8)
A twist. 25 on the 2x, 75 on the 3x, 175 on the 4x... After 37 spins get rid of all the 2x sleepers.
Wish I was this lucky in real life ;D
Oh dear :lol: not again simulator.
Simulater only for show turbo meth to plyer
Quote from: psimoes on Apr 09, 07:06 AM 2018Seriously, so on average the second and third places will be distant from the first for one and two thirds of the tracks length. OK, that still only defines the PLACES, not the actual horses. The first place can and will be ANY horse. Because the racetrack being fair to all the competitors means they all will finish in first, second and third for about the same number if times. Worse, place changing can happen during session and the favourite gets relegated to third while the underdog wins.
Worst, they all waste 37 portions of ration to finish the race but the prize is only 36.
All I asked was where the #2 and #3 horses would be "on average" on the track when the leader wins the race. This is math and it's not hard at all to do - there's even a program in this thread to do it for you (and me) - and proves that "random" is "predictable" since you can pick the winner very near the end of the race and almost always be right (Don't have to be right 100% of the time).
Random is Predictable is beyond what the "nay sayers" can handle obviously - it's the first step in understanding how the game can be beaten with math, but it's easier for them to just deny it or say it doesn't relate to roulette, etc.
In reality it sure does -
If they spend 10 minutes thinking about it - "easy peasy"
make #1 a horse, #2 a horse and #3 a horse.
On any win (random) move the bet to the right one spot.
Watch what happens !! Just like the tester coded in this thread - one horse will win, the other two will be at a predictable position behind in their own column.
So if the horse going #1 to #34 is at #31 and the other two are behind - would they bet on that horse to make it to the last spot before the other two catch up and win ? Of course - random shows us that.
No one is saying it will show any faster or slower than the other 'horses' in the race or it will make a profit, All I'm asking is which 'horse' would win.
It's completely random and predictable with amazing accuracy.
But of course that would mean random can be predicted and they can't wrap their minds around that, much less the actual ways to do it and make money playing the game.
So maybe I'm wasting my time. It will be in the book though, I'm seriously thinking of writing one.
I can also easily display how to win using patterns - but they don't believe in those either, even though I could display it working perfectly each and every time they tried it.
It's just not worth it, they'll never get it.
Quote from: TurboGenius on Apr 09, 06:01 PM 2018
"random" is "predictable" since you can pick the winner very near the end of the race and almost always be right (Don't have to be right 100% of the time).
Random is Predictable is beyond what the "nay sayers" can handle obviously - it's the first step in understanding how the game can be beaten with math, but it's easier for them to just deny it or say it doesn't relate to roulette, etc.
In reality it sure does -
Because they are scared to admit they are wrong. Or that it will shatter everything they thought they knew.
Quote from: RouletteGhost on Apr 09, 06:09 PM 2018
Because they are scared to admit they are wrong. Or that it will shatter everything they thought they knew.
It is predictable even with an even money bet .
Yes I agree you can calculate on average where the horses will be. But how does that help?
Quote from: RouletteGhost on Apr 09, 06:09 PM 2018Because they are scared to admit they are wrong. Or that it will shatter everything they thought they knew.
True
Quote from: vladir on Apr 09, 06:25 PM 2018Yes I agree you can calculate on average where the horses will be. But how does that help?
It helps to show that things that are random can also be predictable.
For the patterns comment I made - (because they say random doesn't make patterns you can benefit from....) Pattern noted - and exploited.... simple.
("not enough spins", "simulator is fixed", "toy wheel", "can't do it in a casino" and last but not least "misleading the masses for some nefarious plan") There, I think I covered it all.
(link:s://s18.postimg.org/azjtkbpnd/5acbb959.jpg)
Made 6 times my starting bankroll in only 190 spins, it's got to be magic or nonsense.
If AP is your thing, then stick to AP
Don’t spend your free time ripping on people who play differently
It’s weird. There are psychiatrists for that
The AP section at GF: Not one thread from this clown
Quote from: TurboGenius on Apr 09, 06:01 PM 2018All I asked was where the #2 and #3 horses would be "on average" on the track when the leader wins the race. This is math and it's not hard at all to do - there's even a program in this thread to do it for you (and me) - and proves that "random" is "predictable" since you can pick the winner very near the end of the race and almost always be right (Don't have to be right 100% of the time).
You have your wires crossed. You are misunderstanding. What you're saying is like saying after 1000 spins, there will be around equal reds/blacks, that its predictable and you can use this. But you cant.
Quote from: TurboGenius on Apr 09, 06:01 PM 2018Random is Predictable is beyond what the "nay sayers" can handle obviously
I'm not a naysayer. I'm just someone who understands the simple logic and math. You are not providing proof of concept. But the "naysayers" provide proof of many things including repeaters not changing the odds. And again, repeaters and hot numbers are really old news.
Quote from: TurboGenius on Apr 09, 06:01 PM 2018it's the first step in understanding how the game can be beaten with math, but it's easier for them to just deny it or say it doesn't relate to roulette, etc.
The only math you have cited is flat wrong. You have never shown any correct math as proof.
This is a big waste of my and everyone's time. I'm sorry it is just like the flat earthers that promise to reveal big fireworks proof, but we get nothing but more misunderstandings of reality. Its not personal. Your naysayers arent the unreasonable people. They are the only ones with logic and verifiable supporting data and test results - and instead of that, your examples and logic are backwards and incorrect.
You are misleading people, and I just hope they dont take too long to understand why your approaches dont work. The facts have been explained many times, but some people who still follow your inaccurate claims choose to bury their head in the sand. That's their problem.
Quote from: TurboGenius on Apr 09, 06:01 PM 2018All I asked was where the #2 and #3 horses would be "on average" on the track when the leader wins the race. This is math and it's not hard at all to do - there's even a program in this thread to do it for you (and me) - and proves that "random" is "predictable" since you can pick the winner very near the end of the race and almost always be right (Don't have to be right 100% of the time).
Turbo, I´ve ran the program a few times and I don´t think it proves anything. It´s the same as simulating dozens or columns on a no zero wheel. Sometimes the dominant dozen wins, sometimes it doesn´t.
I wish this was a HG, I´d be all over it, but can´t agree with it. Sorry.
Quote from: TurboGenius on Apr 09, 07:08 PM 2018
(link:s://s18.postimg.org/azjtkbpnd/5acbb959.jpg)
Do you trust that RNG? I don´t think it´s quite random. Look at all the back-to-back repeaters and the intermitent repeaters as well like (13 22 13...26 14 26 etc). It´s a small sample but I´ve ran into several sessions that resemble that one too much.
Quote from: TurboGenius on Apr 08, 08:45 PM 2018That is perfect. I would give you 10 extra likes if I could !
Thanks Turbo. I'm a fan of betting on hot numbers and repeaters myself. It seems to work better than if you pick numbers which are "cold" even though the maths says there should be no difference. Or does it? There is actually some mathematical support for it.
link:s://:.pinnacle.com/en/betting-articles/Betting-Strategy/how-often-does-the-lead-change/FHY2BM6AU2UJTQH9
One way your analogy of a horse race falls short of roulette is that in a horse race we know when the winner has won (every racetrack has a finite length), but when playing roulette there is no "end", just an infinite stream of random numbers. So I find it's better when playing roulette to set up artificial "finish lines" and pick several numbers fairly close to them. It doesn't always work of course, but it's a pretty good way to play.
Hey Turbo,
I think randomness boils down to a lack of understanding. If you could understand every single factor, then you would know what the outcome is. No one can do that, but some people understand the variables better than others giving them a better advantage.
In your example, one horse wins, you are betting on the other two, but you have information that other bettors don't. When the first horse wins, someone plans on shooting the other two so they never finish. Maybe the plan fails, but you have that little bit of extra information that someone else doesn't have. Its still random, but who will most likely win the bet?
I ran that program, in 20 trials maybe twice a horse finished with less than half the distance.
You can usually tell the difference between a random number list that a person just thought up and a real random number list because people will try to make the list balanced so it seems random. lol
True randomness has a hard time making things balanced all the time.
Quote from: CoderJoe on Apr 10, 03:27 AM 2018So I find it's better when playing roulette to set up artificial "finish lines" and pick several numbers fairly close to them. It doesn't always work of course, but it's a pretty good way to play.
I completely agree. :)
Quote from: FreeRoulette on Apr 14, 03:10 AM 2018n your example, one horse wins, you are betting on the other two, but you have information that other bettors don't.
I'm not betting on anything in the example - just showing how when one horse wins - the other two will be at predictable places on the track. I don't need to always be right either. I can predict in a random supposedly unpredictable game which was the point of the post. There is plenty of areas in "random" that can be predicted with enough accuracy for the player to win.
Quote from: FreeRoulette on Apr 14, 03:33 AM 2018True randomness has a hard time making things balanced all the time.
That's true - random rarely produces equality - and that can be used to the player's benefit. If you know "equal" isn't likely to happen, you can win by betting against equality happening.
Turbogenius
May you please tell us in "two words" how do you play roulette ?
Quote from: Roulettebeater on Apr 14, 10:06 AM 2018May you please tell us in "two words" how do you play roulette ?
"Always win". That's hard to do in two words.
To the topic at hand - Since I don't think Steve (or the General) are interested.
When one horse wins and is at 100% down the track -
the 2nd place horse will be (on average) 90.73% down the track.
the 3rd place horse will be (on average) 82.81% down the track.
So even with "random" in this example (be it a bad analogy unless you can
imagine horses in a race running "randomly" - which is what I was getting at)
Once a horse in the lead is beyond 90.73% down the track, you can "predict" with
very good (not perfect) accuracy that it will win the race, despite the fact that all
3 horses are moving randomly at all times - you can still predict random accurate
enough to win well above 1/3 of the time, which is all you would get just picking
one of the three.
One example of how random can be made predictable... but somehow I doubt that
will matter much to the people who don't see past 1 spin and think there's no comparison
between randomly moving horses and numbers appearing at random on the wheel.
I tried. It's a big first step for them to take to see the big picture, but they won't want
to take it.
Quote from: TurboGenius on Apr 14, 10:19 AM 2018
"Always win". That's hard to do in two words.
To the topic at hand - Since I don't think Steve (or the General) are interested.
When one horse wins and is at 100% down the track -
the 2nd place horse will be (on average) 90.73% down the track.
the 3rd place horse will be (on average) 82.81% down the track.
So even with "random" in this example (be it a bad analogy unless you can
imagine horses in a race running "randomly" - which is what I was getting at)
Once a horse in the lead is beyond 90.73% down the track, you can "predict" with
very good (not perfect) accuracy that it will win the race, despite the fact that all
3 horses are moving randomly at all times - you can still predict random accurate
enough to win well above 1/3 of the time, which is all you would get just picking
one of the three.
One example of how random can be made predictable... but somehow I doubt that
will matter much to the people who don't see past 1 spin and think there's no comparison
between randomly moving horses and numbers appearing at random on the wheel.
I tried. It's a big first step for them to take to see the big picture, but they won't want
to take it.
Much to think about.
In the meantime, can you explaining us (the ones that want to learn) how we get a snowball effect in your way of playing it in roulette i'm General? You once said, that once the snowball is Running down the Hill, it is tobus to decide when the snowball Will stop Rolling and decide how much profit we want. I Just can't understand how we can be in profit All the Time at some Point. The number of spins doesn't matter. Regarding repeaters. Cheers, eddy
Quote from: TurboGenius on Apr 14, 10:19 AM 2018
"Always win". That's hard to do in two words.
To the topic at hand - Since I don't think Steve (or the General) are interested.
When one horse wins and is at 100% down the track -
the 2nd place horse will be (on average) 90.73% down the track.
the 3rd place horse will be (on average) 82.81% down the track.
So even with "random" in this example (be it a bad analogy unless you can
imagine horses in a race running "randomly" - which is what I was getting at)
Once a horse in the lead is beyond 90.73% down the track, you can "predict" with
very good (not perfect) accuracy that it will win the race, despite the fact that all
3 horses are moving randomly at all times - you can still predict random accurate
enough to win well above 1/3 of the time, which is all you would get just picking
one of the three.
One example of how random can be made predictable... but somehow I doubt that
will matter much to the people who don't see past 1 spin and think there's no comparison
between randomly moving horses and numbers appearing at random on the wheel.
I tried. It's a big first step for them to take to see the big picture, but they won't want
to take it.
I really wish for a constructive debate with you over this!
When you say that you beating roulette with random, you are giving the guys who don't believe you a great evidence that your system is a loser!
How on earth, can one beat random game with random bets ?!!
Most winners try their best to reduce randomness in roulette so that they can increase their profits, but according to you, the more Random the wheel, the more profitable it is !
Who should one believe, you or the 99.9% of famous roulette players ?
!!!!!
Quote from: Roulettebeater on Apr 14, 10:48 AM 2018How on earth, can one beat random game with random bets ?!!
Who should one believe, you or the 99.9% of famous roulette players ?
!!!!!
I don't make random bets - I used the random outcome the wheel provides and predict the outcome.
As for believing me - the naysayers never will, other people will - it's not really a big deal to me who does or doesn't - or how "experienced" they are.
People tend to be stuck in their ways and no amount of convincing will work.
They've been told from the beginning that beating the game was impossible, random isn't predictable, the house edge can't be overcome - when that happens and is displayed, it has to be rigged and misleading doesn't it ?
If it wins in a casino, then it's "not enough spins".
Famous roulette players ? I would have to say that covers me as well.
I don't need to sneak in a computer or scour the globe for a bias wheel - those are
probably much more exciting ways to go because they are both complicated to pull off and work ! Some guy using a system that never loses on any wheel or RNG just doesn't have the same credibility lol.
I'll start "ASP" instead of "AP" - they can have that.
I'll call it "Advantage System Play"..... hey, that's a good idea.
Quote from: Roulettebeater on Apr 14, 10:48 AM 2018
I really wish for a constructive debate with you over this!
When you say that you beating roulette with random, you are giving the guys who don't believe you a great evidence that your system is a loser!
How on earth, can one beat random game with random bets ?!!
Most winners try their best to reduce randomness in roulette so that they can increase their profits, but according to you, the more Random the wheel, the more profitable it is !
Who should one believe, you or the 99.9% of famous roulette players ?
!!!!!
Because Random has his limits.
@Turbo,
When you Have the Time and Energy, can you please respond to my question and my emails?
Cheers.
Quote from: TurboGenius on Apr 14, 10:59 AM 2018
I'll start "ASP" instead of "AP" - they can have that.
I'll call it "Advantage System Play"..... hey, that's a good idea.
TG, I have been thinking a name. :question:
ASP is a good name. :thumbsup:
Quote from: TurboGenius on Apr 14, 10:59 AM 2018
I don't make random bets - I used the random outcome the wheel provides and predict the outcome.
As for believing me - the naysayers never will, other people will - it's not really a big deal to me who does or doesn't - or how "experienced" they are.
People tend to be stuck in their ways and no amount of convincing will work.
They've been told from the beginning that beating the game was impossible, random isn't predictable, the house edge can't be overcome - when that happens and is displayed, it has to be rigged and misleading doesn't it ?
If it wins in a casino, then it's "not enough spins".
Famous roulette players ? I would have to say that covers me as well.
I don't need to sneak in a computer or scour the globe for a bias wheel - those are
probably much more exciting ways to go because they are both complicated to pull off and work ! Some guy using a system that never loses on any wheel or RNG just doesn't have the same credibility lol.
I'll start "ASP" instead of "AP" - they can have that.
I'll call it "Advantage System Play"..... hey, that's a good idea.
[/quote
Turbo you are very good writer you should think a book it would sell hands over fist.
Ps need you thoughts on even money bets after doing test on them like the video on nuclear physics random it's so easy to see where they were right on thousand on trial but how can this be used in say 200 bets thanks
Quote from: TurboGenius on Apr 14, 10:19 AM 2018Once a horse in the lead is beyond 90.73% down the track, you can "predict" with
very good (not perfect) accuracy that it will win the race, despite the fact that all
3 horses are moving randomly at all times - you can still predict random accurate
enough to win well above 1/3 of the time, which is all you would get just picking
one of the three.
Exactly how and why, please? Thanks
In a horse race the "finish lines" return more wins than horses. :question:
Mistake one was claiming that you can beat the random game in the long run by using random to beat random.
Comparing horse racing to roulette didn't help the argument.
What would help Turbo make his argument would be math. He likes to claim that math beats a math game, but we have yet to see the math.
It would be a pleasant change to actually see some math posted at some point.
The probability of winning on a number that has repeated is 1/37 in the random game. I'd like Turbo to explain, if he can, how this probability changes in the long term. Again, using math, not horse racing comparisons.
Math beats math game ?
How crazy is this statement !
Maybe turbo has a PHD in mathematics and we don't know !
But even if he holds a PHD he won't be able to beat roulette with math !
Even Einstein couldn't propose a Mathematical solution for this game..
It's time to stop this nonsense !
Quote from: Roulettebeater on Apr 14, 03:37 PM 2018Even Einstein couldn't propose a Mathematical solution for this game..
It's time to stop this nonsense !
He never tried - and the so-called "quote" from him is a fake quote.
He could care less about random and could care even less about roulette.
PS/ since his fake quote means so much - he also said....
"A man in the future will beat the game with math. Math beats a math game.
Random is predictable and has limits" Albert Einstein (as overheard saying at a bar once).
Jeez, his IQ wasn't even that high. Guy gets all the credit for everything lol
Quote from: TurboGenius on Apr 14, 10:19 AM 2018
"Always win". That's hard to do in two words.
To the topic at hand - Since I don't think Steve (or the General) are interested.
When one horse wins and is at 100% down the track -
the 2nd place horse will be (on average) 90.73% down the track.
the 3rd place horse will be (on average) 82.81% down the track.
So even with "random" in this example (be it a bad analogy unless you can
imagine horses in a race running "randomly" - which is what I was getting at)
Once a horse in the lead is beyond 90.73% down the track, you can "predict" with
very good (not perfect) accuracy that it will win the race, despite the fact that all
3 horses are moving randomly at all times - you can still predict random accurate
enough to win well above 1/3 of the time, which is all you would get just picking
one of the three.
One example of how random can be made predictable... but somehow I doubt that
will matter much to the people who don't see past 1 spin and think there's no comparison
between randomly moving horses and numbers appearing at random on the wheel.
I tried. It's a big first step for them to take to see the big picture, but they won't want
to take it.
This is the best analogy to start from. If you don't get it you never will. Thanks TG.
Quote from: TurboGenius on Apr 14, 05:20 PM 2018
He never tried - and the so-called "quote" from him is a fake quote.
He could care less about random and could care even less about roulette.
PS/ since his fake quote means so much - he also said....
I wouldn't be surprised if the quote was fake.
There's a zillion fake quotes out there.
QuoteRandom is predictable and has limits"
Yes random has limits related to sample size/degrees of freedom. Of course it does. Meaning you obviously can't see 10 reds in a row in only 9 spins. When you know the degrees of freedom, you know the limits and predictability becomes possible, but not like you're probably thinking and not like you'd like to probably hear.
person says is scientist and then does not know what staking to use on his betting system and now talks about Einstein.... :xd: :xd: :xd: :xd:
i might be a bit drunk but fucking hell...get a life
Quote from: maestro on Apr 14, 05:45 PM 2018
person says is scientist and then does not know what staking to use on his betting system and now talks about Einstein.... :xd: :xd: :xd: :xd:
i might be a bit drunk but f****** hell...get a life
Turbo?
Quoteperson says is scientist and then does not know what staking to use on his betting system and now talks about Einstein.... :xd: :xd: :xd: :xd:
i might be a bit drunk but f****** hell...get a life
Turbo?
no not him he knows what he is on about...it is you PHD math beater
Let's See if i get this Right in terms of roulette :question:
We start betting All the numbers that come from spin 1. When we have a hit and one of the numbers became a 2 we raise that number with a progression and Keep the rest the same. Everytime a 1 repeats it self it is raised. Once a 2 became a 3 we then raise the 3,keep the 2s and Delete All the 1s and continue with the 2s and the 3. We Keep adding 2s and raising when they become a 3 and continue.
As soon. As a 3 becomes a 4 we erase All the 2s and continue with the 3s and the 4. Etc etc etc. Is this Right Turbo? :question: :ooh:
Quote from: maestro on Apr 14, 05:48 PM 2018
no not him he knows what he is on about...it is you PHD math beater
me?
first of all, i am not a PHD holder, second you and TG have apparently zero knowlegde in roulette.
by the way, i still remember when you begged me to give you spins..
DO NOT BITE THE HAND, THAT ONE DAY HELPED YOU.
YOU TRAITOR!
Quote from: The General on Apr 14, 05:39 PM 2018Yes random has limits related to sample size/degrees of freedom. Of course it does. Meaning you obviously can't see 10 reds in a row in only 9 spins.
No no and NO. We can't go there anymore thanks to Bago - you know.
A number can appear 9 times in a few million spins then right ?
He said it's impossible. Therefore random has limits and my so-called enemy Bago backs up what I say while trying to insult me. Nice when it works that way.
So there's no limits, but "THAT" just happened and now it's impossible.
It wasn't possible - the mistake was found and fixed...."random has limits"..... it's just something you guys are going to have to admit someday.
Quote from: Roulettebeater on Apr 14, 05:52 PM 2018first of all, i am not a PHD holder
Whew, that mystery is solved. lol Who woulda guessed ?
first change your pills...
second in open forum i asked for spin file of yours i do not beg and never will..chisel this in your PHD smooothy brain
and third if i ask you for help i rather buy a gun and stream the bullet in my head :xd: :xd: :xd: :xd: :xd: :xd: :xd:
jekhb7........by george i think you got it.........its like you just repeated everything turbo has been saying word for word ......and i bet your testing away.......
Quote from: maestro on Apr 14, 05:57 PM 2018second in open forum i asked for spin file of yours i do not beg and never will..chisel this in your PHD smooothy brain
and third if i ask you for help i rather buy a gun and stream the bullet in my head :xd: :xd: :xd: :xd: :xd: :xd: :xd:
Don't kid the members here.. you begged me and i have the evidence.
should i show it?
admit that and stop your childish behavior... if you can't be a winner, at least be a man!
:-)
you mean this one.. :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:
told you change your pillls
(link:://:.pichost.org/images/2018/04/14/temp_441016.png) (link:://:.pichost.org/image/sUAkL)
Loser and Liar too? that's too much!
Train your brain to think positively with the happy pill, stick to it
:twisted:
After reading a bit more, here's what the system relies on.
1. Turbo appears to acknowledge that the numbers, even repeaters will only hit at expectation...1 in 38 ( 00 wheel)
2. The progression. It is what enables it to win in the short term. Like the Martingale, it borrows from the future, to fund the present. As long as the player steadily increases the bets until they win, and have the resources to chase the win, it works...until it doesn't.
The main idea is that you have X % chance of winning your progression within Y number of spins. Unfortunately the probability says that the chance of winning is smaller than what is needed to break even because of the extra one or two pockets on the wheel.
It's a fun way to play, no doubt.
My variation of it would be to turn the progression upside down, and play it using the reverse labby. Such a progression will not produce a small win, and it will often produce a loss. But when it does win, the amount won can be astounding. It is not an AP play. It's just a fun gamble.
Quote from: The General on Apr 14, 06:15 PM 2018because of the extra one or two pockets on the wheel.
Every possible number is factored into the equation. I play the 0 or the 0 and 00 like any other number... throw in a 000 and I'm fine as well, or even a 0000 spot. Will that happen someday ? Probably.
Quote
Loser and Liar too? that's too much!
Train your brain to think positively with the happy pill, stick to it
lots of beggggin i must admit
Yes, I'm sure they're factored into your equations. Unfortunately the house edge is still there.
Quote from: jekhb76 on Apr 14, 05:50 PM 2018
Let's See if i get this Right in terms of roulette :question:
We start betting All the numbers that come from spin 1. When we have a hit and one of the numbers became a 2 we raise that number with a progression and Keep the rest the same. Everytime a 1 repeats it self it is raised. Once a 2 became a 3 we then raise the 3,keep the 2s and Delete All the 1s and continue with the 2s and the 3. We Keep adding 2s and raising when they become a 3 and continue.
As soon. As a 3 becomes a 4 we erase All the 2s and continue with the 3s and the 4. Etc etc etc. Is this Right Turbo? :question: :ooh:
Hi jekhb, you have not incorporated the idea presented in TG's horse race analogy into your betting model. Forget about progression for a start see if you can make your bets win without progression - it's possible. You don't have to win all the races, that's not possible. Your aim is to win the big payout races with your bets on the favourite horse.
Random has no limits ?Random has limits ?Which is correct ? :xd: :xd: :xd:
Quote from: jekhb76 on Apr 14, 05:50 PM 2018
Let's See if i get this Right in terms of roulette :question:
We start betting All the numbers that come from spin 1. When we have a hit and one of the numbers became a 2 we raise that number with a progression and Keep the rest the same. Everytime a 1 repeats it self it is raised. Once a 2 became a 3 we then raise the 3,keep the 2s and Delete All the 1s and continue with the 2s and the 3. We Keep adding 2s and raising when they become a 3 and continue.
As soon. As a 3 becomes a 4 we erase All the 2s and continue with the 3s and the 4. Etc etc etc. Is this Right Turbo? :question: :ooh:
Never mind, DUMP!
played 50 sessions last night, All sessions were chasing loses. Oh well Back to the drawingboard. Turbo isn't helping so we have to do it alone again.
As up till now, our best bet is the play the Max 4 hottest numbers from each cycle! And when it isn't Hot anymore we drop them and at the newest hottest from the next cycle. It is a rotaying method, but i got the best results from it so far. Not unbeatable, but quit when your in profit and start fresh is the way to go as for now.
When you ask very politie of someone Will respond to messages, reply's om threads and emails and you See that he is responding to othetrs but not to yours, i'm done with it. It is Just rude. I thought we were here to help eachother but this is Just thinking about yourself and nothing less. It has been a chasing rabits game for years now, this must End, because Turbo isn't revailing anything anything to us. Just Tell us what you are doin' and Let us decide if it is a good method or what, the hell with the casino's. Let's Make money as Long as we can. But playing like scrooge isn't the way.
Quote from: jekhb76 on Apr 15, 02:41 AM 2018
he is responding to othetrs but not to yours, i'm done with it. It is Just rude. I thought we were here to help eachother but this is Just thinking about yourself and nothing less. It has been a chasing rabits game for years now, this must End, because Turbo isn't revailing anything anything to us. Just Tell us what you are doin' and Let us decide if it is a good method or what, the hell with the casino's. Let's Make money as Long as we can. But playing like scrooge isn't the way.
Because he have nothing to offer, he only play meaningless random numbers in play for fun casino.
Quote from: Lucky7Red on Apr 15, 03:18 AM 2018
Because he have nothing to offer, he only play meaningless random numbers in play for fun casino.
Well i'm done with it, that's for sure.
Not only here, everyone is done with him, on gamblingsforum also. Up there he is playing the same guessing game.
I'm tired of spending All my free Time in chasing something that probably doesn't exist. I know, it's my own choice, but not anymore, i'm done with it. And i think it's best that we All don't pay attention anymore to these nonsense threads from now on. We are only feeding, and it won't suprise me, if Turbo is laughing behind his Desk All the Time, everytime we ask him questions. Most of the members here on this Forum are here to help eachother or to test systems , Turbo is only giving clues, nothing More, not even math that supports his method in the First place. What do we get? Horse racing instead. :yawn:
You've come full circle their Jek. Guess it was a pretty bad run last night
Quote from: fossell on Apr 15, 04:05 AM 2018
You've come full circle their Jek. Guess it was a pretty bad run last night
Yes it was, and i was Living in a Circle. It took me years to find out, but i'm done with it now.
Quote from: jekhb76 on Apr 15, 04:07 AM 2018
Yes it was, and i was Living in a Circle. It took me years to find out, but i'm done with it now.
Good that you put a full stop to this chase down the rabbit hole. Some never do.
Quote from: jekhb76 on Apr 15, 02:41 AM 2018our best bet is the play the Max 4 hottest numbers
Eddy
The 4 #'s is best.
If you look at Morts #'s most days supplied the spins 11-40 gets 15 non-hit so theres 15 repeats. So if theres 15 coming try to find a way to catch them
(link:://:.pichost.org/images/2018/04/15/temp_269847.png) (link:://:.pichost.org/image/sUp5U)
Today mort got 14 repeats, 9+15=24; we see 25 non-hit came so 16 came in those 30 spins. Work with that 15 /15
If anyone is interested, the main assumption in TG's model is the distribution is leptokurtic.
(link:://:.pichost.org/images/2018/04/15/temp_341063.png) (link:://:.pichost.org/image/sUuxg)
With a reset after the KFC; the common 9/10
But we want 24 non-hit by spin 40 and we got 23, so here 16 repeats happened
(link:://:.pichost.org/images/2018/04/15/temp_691307.png) (link:://:.pichost.org/image/sUBIV)
KFC
Unless Turbo provides real MATH to underbuild his System and he gives us a real explenation to what he is doin'. I'm out of the Turbo Camp for good.
Give us a real session and explaining what you are doin' only that way we can find out for ourselfs if it is a Good method or not.
If you continue this Fox hunt with All of us, there won't be a single person on this Forum in the End Who will take you serious anymore. Just a hint.
Nothing personal.
Look how turbo is losing his game here
-:)
:xd:
Quote from: jekhb76 on Apr 15, 07:14 AM 2018. I'm out of the Turbo Camp for good.
Just remember...Ed's a nice guy with a cool sense of humour. Hes been a great help to me both directly and indirectly. I owe him big time.
That said...I can see why he is getting so much stick. Im not getting involved in that though....doesnt feel right
Hes a big boy. Sure he can muddle through it
Quote from: Turner on Apr 15, 08:46 AM 2018
Just remember...Ed's a nice guy with a cool sense of humour. Hes been a great help to me both directly and indirectly. I owe him big time.
That said...I can see why he is getting so much stick. Im not getting involved in that though....doesnt feel right
Hes a big boy. Sure he can muddle through it
That's why i said that it is nothing personal. But I'm just tired of the same old chasing rabits all the time, in a rabits hole without a end, and i'm sure there are lots of members here who are feeling the same way. But if Ed's a nice guy or not, i can't judge, because i don't know him personaly. I'm just spanking him >:D, for what he is doin' on this and other forums, that's all.
Like I said....I can see why he is getting all this stick
What with all the Albert Einstein quotes....Here are 3 pertinent ones!
1) It's not that I am so smart, it's just that I stay with problems longer.
2) If I had an hour to solve a problem, I would spend 55 minutes thinking about the problem and 5 minutes thinking about solutions.
3) Logic will get you from point A to B. Imagination will take you everywhere.
I like number 2 the best. Perhaps anyone not really getting any of this should focus more on the 'WHY' it's not working for them. What causes the whole thing to break down.
Betting too many numbers.
Too many spins between winners.
Then when you have all that written down, let number 3 (imagination) take over.
Betting too many numbers.
12, 8, 4 numbers.
Try ONE number.
If you can win with one number you got it !
Quote from: Turner on Apr 15, 08:46 AM 2018Sure he can muddle through it
It's no problem to muddle :)
I don't take anything personal.
I give out enough details to put people on the right path.
Analogy time.. (damn I love those)
Someone finds a treasure map - everyone scrambles to read it and understand it,
a few people manage to follow it and end up in a field with trees surrounding it.
The big X is next to a tree on the map - but which one ???
Some people will start digging by every tree.. I'm not sure why.
Some people will grab a metal detector and start looking, more efficient.
Some people will dig a few holes and then leave with their hands up saying
that the map wasn't specific enough as to exactly which tree to look under,
that it's all a waste of time - there's no treasure ! They'll say the map should have
specifically said exactly which tree to look under - the fact that there's billions of
trees in the world and the map gives the right location to narrow it down to 1
field with a few trees wasn't good enough. Whoever drew the map was a real
asshole I guess, why did he make a map to help people looking for the treasure
and then not put the exact tree to look under ???? they storm off frustrated.
I'm completely ok with all of that.
The "horse race" analogy was to show that random can be predictable, it had
nothing to do with a specific system or way to play (although there are some that
can formed around this info).
If that makes me the bad guy then I can live with that.
But contrary to what Steve thinks, it's not misleading. It's leading.
If the level of proof required to demonstrate something completely exposes
and gives away how it's done - that's a bit silly in this case. It exists but isn't
going to be posted. If I posted the "map" and not the exact tree to look under -
that's not on me either. Supposedly as proof I'm supposed to take everyone to
the exact tree, dig it up my self and hold the buried box in the air. I'll still be a
asshole trust me, it won't change lol.
The naysayers will say "It's probably empty, there's nothing of value in there, he
probably put it there this morning... make him open it and show everyone !!"
then..
"That money isn't real, those jewels are probably fake, it's all a sham"
"Make him take the box and treasure to be appraised !!"
then..
"The appraiser is working with him, it's a scam - he switched what was in
the box !"
If anyone thinks it's frustrating - try being me to 10 seconds and then explain
to me why I even bother to post at all.
If anyone thinks it's a waste of time, by all means stop and walk away from it.
These forums are all optional when it comes to participation, opinions
and facts seem to range from one end of the scale to the other.
And none of us are here to perform for everyone else, you either have interest
and read - work it out or you can pick up the shovel and walk away.
Quote from: TurboGenius on Apr 15, 10:42 AM 2018I give out enough details to put people on the right path.
First sign of insanity - quoting yourself.
But anyway -
Please ask Steve to post every detail of how his computers work, diagrams and a step by step instruction manual to build one - OR ELSE it's FAKE.
Please ask the General to post every detail of how he spots bias wheels, every detail - what to look for - how many spins to track, how to use that information properly in order to hit the casino and win - OR ELSE it's FAKE.
It's nonsense - both of those ways work and everyone knows that but you won't find specific details posted in the open that give away every detail of how they do what they do.
No one holds them to the same level of proof of course - it's "AP" and top secret.
If a system player can win using math and random, we all know the payout doesn't
equal the odds of any position showing for one spin, so it's FAKE, misleading......
It's fine with me. Hold me to a level that you don't hold them to, I'm ok with that too -
but don't expect me to comply with posting every detail in the open.
It's not going to happen.
Quote from: wiggy on Apr 15, 09:56 AM 2018
should focus more on the 'WHY' it's not working for them. What causes the whole thing to break down.
Betting too many numbers.
Too many spins between winners.
Very good advice :thumbsup:
Why would we bet on 'spins'?
Quote from: TurboGenius on Apr 15, 10:54 AM 2018
First sign of insanity - quoting yourself.
But anyway -
Please ask Steve to post every detail of how his computers work, diagrams and a step by step instruction manual to build one - OR ELSE it's FAKE.
Please ask the General to post every detail of how he spots bias wheels, every detail - what to look for - how many spins to track, how to use that information properly in order to hit the casino and win - OR ELSE it's FAKE.
It's nonsense - both of those ways work and everyone knows that but you won't find specific details posted in the open that give away every detail of how they do what they do.
No one holds them to the same level of proof of course - it's "AP" and top secret.
If a system player can win using math and random, we all know the payout doesn't
equal the odds of any position showing for one spin, so it's FAKE, misleading......
It's fine with me. Hold me to a level that you don't hold them to, I'm ok with that too -
but don't expect me to comply with posting every detail in the open.
It's not going to happen.
You don't Have to explaining everything in detail, Just Be More direct in what you are trying to teach us, istead of leiding us nowhere.
You can say:
Focus only on the hottest numbers nothing else. Or play only this Max amount of numbers , noththing More. Use only this progression type, nothing else. Etc. This is not revailing your system, but bringing us on the Right track and where to look. Now you are only give us a treasure map and a few Trees and Rocks Without telling us wich Country to look. We don't need the X we only want you yo get More specificaties and put the math behind your way of playing.
This is a long shot but here goes he bets all the 1s until the 2 s then drops of all the 1s sometime profit some time not .
Now he continues with all the 2 s til the 3 4 s and 5 s when he's in profit he quites if not goes on for 114 spin til profit add a positive progression and walla a tria mi su alla turbo.
In other words make your own way don't depend on any one .world does work that way .if you want more you have to pay the piper nothing free here .
Nuclear physics Random events
I bet the 2s in my system and this on even money bet after thousnsd of trials I'm happy with my out comes the bell curve is predictable. Find your own way you'll be happier. :)
WINNER absolutely agree with you the bell curve is predictable ! I solved this problem and it worked !
Quote from: evs on Apr 15, 12:19 PM 2018
I solved this problem and it worked !
And you can help easily to jekhb76
I will not sell will not give their knowledge to competitors. on the sites I look through whether I have competitors.
Quote from: Winner on Apr 15, 11:31 AM 2018
This is a long shot but here goes he bets all the 1s until the 2 s then drops of all the 1s sometime profit some time not .
Now he continues with all the 2 s til the 3 4 s and 5 s when he's in profit he quites if not goes on for 114 spin til profit add a positive progression and walla a tria mi su alla turbo.
In other words make your own way don't depend on any one .world does work that way .if you want more you have to pay the piper nothing free here .
A good idea, but does the progression work? Someone tested it? I ran a few tests, but I fear the loss can get big before you get a hit and you will not even be on a new high.
Quote from: boyd30 on Apr 15, 04:00 PM 2018
A good idea, but does the progression work? Someone tested it? I ran a few tests, but I fear the loss can get big before you get a hit and you will not even be on a new high.
[/quote
I find that it goes down and up but with a bit of profit .
Quote from: Roulettebeater on Apr 15, 07:22 AM 2018
Look how turbo is losing his game here
-:)
:xd:
This sort of stuff is not necessary. You are making it personal.
Quote from: TurboGenius on Apr 15, 10:54 AM 2018
First sign of insanity - quoting yourself.
But anyway -
Please ask Steve to post every detail of how his computers work, diagrams and a step by step instruction manual to build one - OR ELSE it's FAKE.
Please ask the General to post every detail of how he spots bias wheels, every detail - what to look for - how many spins to track, how to use that information properly in order to hit the casino and win - OR ELSE it's FAKE.
It's nonsense - both of those ways work and everyone knows that but you won't find specific details posted in the open that give away every detail of how they do what they do.
No one holds them to the same level of proof of course - it's "AP" and top secret.
If a system player can win using math and random, we all know the payout doesn't
equal the odds of any position showing for one spin, so it's FAKE, misleading......
It's fine with me. Hold me to a level that you don't hold them to, I'm ok with that too -
but don't expect me to comply with posting every detail in the open.
It's not going to happen.
Actually I clearly explain the concept behind computers, here and following pages so people can try making their own computer:
link:s://:.roulette-computers.com/how-to-make/
And I provide a free demo of a basic computer here:
link:://:.roulette-computers.com/free-trial/
Plus I provide a lot more proof. Anyone who investigates properly is left with no doubt.
But the proof for your system is on rigged games or games with unrealistic table limits. You haven't provided any proof of concept - you've merely incorrect understandings and contradictions. As I said before, your s-called proof is like "proof" from flat-Earthers. You tout it like it's fact and proof of concept, when it more shows your misunderstandings.
You haven't showed proof of concept at all. You dont need to show anything. Nobody is forcing you. But you've been touting your system as the HG. As everyone should expect, if you do that, you better have something to back it up beyond rigged game results, or you'll rightfully cop flak.