I've updated link:s://:.roulettephysics.com/roulette-strategy/ with the following:
FICTION: You can build a system around a "rare event" that you'll never see in your lifetime
Another common mistake is believing you can use progression to win before a "rare event" happens. It's incorrect because the odds still haven't changed. Your perception of a "rare" event is actually something that will eventually happen in enough spins.
For example, you may have never seen these winning numbers in a row: 1,2,3,4,5. But chances are you've never seen this sequence either: 32,4,18,9,1. If you see enough spins, they will happen exactly the same amount of times. Each sequence is just as rare as the other.
Another example is expecting you'll never see 37 different numbers appear in 37 spins. Firstly, it will happen just as often as any other sequence of 37 spins. So why would you favor one group of 37 numbers over another 37 numbers? There is no difference at all. Each spin is independent and with the same odds. It's exactly the same as expecting to never see four reds in a row (RRRR). It may occur less often than a mixed sequence like BRRB or RBRB, but the odds of any specific sequence happening are exactly the same. So thinking one sequence is more rare than another is delusion.
Put another way, imagine waiting many years to see the spin sequence 1,2,3,4,5. It seems really rare, and you bet that #6 wont spin next. But actually the odds of #6 spinning next are the same as any other number. Run some proper simulations and you'll see no matter how you play it, you cannot change your odds by betting that rare events wont happen.
Everyone needs to carefully read link:s://:.roulettephysics.com/roulette-strategy/ and you might save yourself a few years of wasted time. It explains all the common mistakes.
(link:://fogsmoviereviews.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/blasphemer.jpg)
Steve,
Oh my, this isn't going to go over well. They are going to crucify you, burn you, drown you, something bad. Repent! Tell them that you're wrong after carefully reviewing thinGs.
.^
Beneath my office is a secret room.
(link:://:.pichost.org/images/2018/04/16/temp_809586.png) (link:://:.pichost.org/image/seS9t)
:)
Steve, why you bothering yourself by writing something like that !
The guys are doing great with their rare event system and making money, you are so idealist, you belive in ideal conditions, life is sometimes runs out of ideal conditions and the guys are approfiting from these conditions
Quote from: The General on Apr 16, 01:56 AM 2018
Steve,
Oh my, this isn't going to go over well. They are going to crucify you, burn you, drown you, something bad. Repent! Tell them that you're wrong after carefully reviewing thinGs.
No, they will just feel the same as you did about this post: link:s://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=20198.msg196901;topicseen :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:
In case someone doesn't yet see the point, it should be added the winning sequences are equally as rare as the losing ones.
Quote from: Roulettebeater on Apr 16, 03:11 AM 2018
Steve, why you bothering yourself by writing something like that !
The guys are doing great with their rare event system and making money, you are so idealist, you belive in ideal conditions, life is sometimes runs out of ideal conditions and the guys are approfiting from these conditions
Why bother? To help prevent people wasting their time and money. To help prevent them being a casinos fool.
And theres a big difference between ideal conditions, and an edge. We're not on the same page.
You can win with a losing system with luck. Most people using the same system will lose. That's not a winning system. Its ignorance and the casinos goldmine. With an edge, the odds turn in the players favor. Its a very different thing.
If you understand what I've said, you'll understand the rare event players are deluded. Its not my opinion. Its reality and you either do or don't understand it.
Even the martingale player can do well for a while before coming back to the drawing board
And as i keep saying, this is all really old news. The ignorance really concerns me because the truth is ignored or not understood, even when it's in peoples faces. Losing money is one thing. But actually im more concerned that the ignorance here is a sample of global ignorance about more important things.
Even when people's faces are slapped, they still dont get it. I really don't understand the ignorance. Is it laziness, stubborness, lack of intelligence, just not understanding or what?
Dont people understand their new idea is actually ancient rubbish tried a million times before?
Why not listen to reason and understand what's being said?
Quote from: Steve on Apr 16, 12:19 AM 2018Another example is expecting you'll never see 37 different numbers appear in 37 spins. Firstly, it will happen just as often as any other sequence of 37 spins.
Won’t happen.
Quote from: Blueprint on Apr 16, 09:24 AM 2018
Won’t happen.
Yes it can happen.
Slot machines are a viable option for many people, and you can earn points towards the buffet.
Quote from: The General on Apr 16, 01:12 PM 2018
Yes it can happen.
Slot machines are a viable option for many people, and you can earn points towards the buffet.
When did this become a slot machine promotion forum
Steve you are ruining your own forum. Just so ya know.
People that make systems for hobby don’t care
Stop ruining your forum
You are giving General what he wants. An old bitter man who can’t find biased wheels in this day and age
Why are you doing this? You are making me laugh lately
Steve is saying this everyday now
So logic tells me he has a system forum for one reason. Why even have a system forum if you are going to say this everyday. LOL. Having something that you hate? Doesn’t make sense. Sell the forum.
Have a roulette system forum and then bash it. Makes sense!
To bet selection i go
And seriously, honestly, wheel bias is bullshit
Quote from: RouletteGhost on Apr 16, 01:36 PM 2018
Steve is saying this everyday now
So logic tells me he has a system forum for one reason. Why even have a system forum if you are going to say this everyday. LOL. Having something that you hate? Doesn’t make sense. Sell the forum.
Have a roulette system forum and then bash it. Makes sense!
To bet selection i go
And seriously, honestly, wheel bias is bullshit
RG honestly if you were selling roullette computers this would be a way to promote it .people get fustrated and there last resort would be a computer.
Quote from: RouletteGhost on Apr 16, 01:36 PM 2018
Steve is saying this everyday now
So logic tells me he has a system forum for one reason. Why even have a system forum if you are going to say this everyday. LOL. Having something that you hate? Doesn’t make sense. Sell the forum.
Have a roulette system forum and then bash it. Makes sense!
To bet selection i go
And seriously, honestly, wheel bias is bullshit
I made this observation after only 1month I joined this forum. Owner of systems forum actively bashing systems. Isn't hard to figure it out that's to cordon the crowd.
@Turner, you have a twist about this going on ?
Problem with betselection is alrelax is now upgraded to moderator. :(
Quote from: The General on Apr 16, 01:12 PM 2018
Yes it can happen.
Slot machines are a viable option for many people, and you can earn points towards the buffet.
Show me.
Show me 37 UNIQUE numbers in 37 spins.
Prove it. I'll wait.
Quote from: Blueprint on Apr 16, 02:33 PM 2018
Show me.
Show me 37 UNIQUE numbers in 37 spins.
Prove it. I'll wait.
I think, you can wait a long time Blue! That ain't gonna happen.
If you really want to get out the pitchforks and torches take a look at this about PRE SHUFFLED BRICK AND MORTAR casino cards that are not random but kind of ANTI RANDOM.
They come in an eight-deck pre shuffled pack in a plastic bag with a zip tie on it, they go straight in the shoe and played with no shuffle or wash in any form...... and from what some baccarat pro players say are PRE Arranged in such a way that nobody can play them without going BONKERS LOL.
Before the casinos went to preshuffled cards, my average was close to +20. Factory preshuffled cards are casino fixed cards which are devastating to shoe score averages. Casinos admit to dealing fixed cards but they have a great party line about this. They say - "We can't fix cards against a player because we don't know which side he's going to bet." Ha, true and that satisfies dummies and other gov't officials who don't fully grasp Baccarat. But the real reason the casinos fix cards is to destroy the trends that both guessers and Pros depend on. Hand Shuffled cards produce reliable trends. But hand shuffled cards have all but disappeared in the casinos. We MIGHT see them in high stakes rooms at very high stakes. But that's about it.
Quote from: RouletteGhost on Apr 16, 01:33 PM 2018
Steve you are ruining your own forum. Just so ya know.
People that make systems for hobby don’t care
Stop ruining your forum
You are giving General what he wants. An old bitter man who can’t find biased wheels in this day and age
Why are you doing this? You are making me laugh lately
Ghost,
The forum is fine. System players are fine. System threads are fine. No conspiracies, no big attacks. All is well, no drama.
Don't freak just because someone speaks a differing view on a rare occasion.
You are a manipulator who has nothing better to do
Why don’t you be honest instead of a liar
Biased wheels are not a cash cow. Stop misleading people.
We know why you are here. Steve doesn’t see it. Not surprised.
Quote from: cht on Apr 16, 01:55 PM 2018
I made this observation after only 1month I joined this forum. Owner of systems forum actively bashing systems. Isn't hard to figure it out that's to cordon the crowd.
@Turner, you have a twist about this going on ?
Problem with betselection is alrelax is now upgraded to moderator. :(
Actually, alrelax being a moderator over at betselection is a minor worry for you.
A bigger -- much bigger -- worry for you is this:
link:://global.espn.com/football/manchester-city/story/3459197/pep-guardiola-near-one-year-manchester-city-extension-sources
Pep will be at City for at least two more years.
Which means your gang of mercenaries will be watching the league -- helplessly and hopelessly -- from the sidelines for at least two more years. :twisted: :twisted:
QuoteBiased wheels are not a cash cow.
No, they're definitely not a cash cow. Even if you found one, it's highly unlikely that you'd be able to beat it without a solid understanding of basic probability and variance. It's not something that a novice gambler should approach. I agree.
Nice spin.
My "Minimum Interval" and a few other systems completely
destroy the credibility of this thread. You can work a system
around rare events, and even patterns and they work incredibly well.
I'd love to take the time to explain this in detail and show how people
who don't believe in systems actually "do" believe they work but don't
realize it. Maybe if I have time later. Of course they won't admit to it
when it's pointed out lol.
Quote from: cht on Apr 16, 01:55 PM 2018@Turner, you have a twist about this going on ?
I have no allegiance to Steve. I wouldnt say we were friends but there seems to be zero friction between us.
I have said on many occasions that I moderate here as a payback to Steve for my being able to be here for the last 8 years totally free.
I tend to be a very loyal person, and I do have a modicum of loyalty to him.
Never look a gift horse in the mouth.....as they say.
This is Steves forum. He pays for it and admins it gratis.
What I will say is this.....
Steve tends to get peoples back up who dont want to hear the truth. He is quite open to new ideas, and encourages them.
No one learned a thing without failing....or even better, failing badly. Steve or Caleb or anyone can not accelerate that learning
If anything, it makes the ignorant more determined to prove they are right, and their path to the truth is bit longer.
What Steve and Caleb do makes people ignorant for longer. Their mistake is forgetting human nature.
I tend to agree with what they say though
See my post link:s://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=20180.msg196356#msg196356
Quote from: TurboGenius on Apr 16, 05:18 PM 2018
My "Minimum Interval" and a few other systems completely
destroy the credibility of this thread. You can work a system
around rare events, and even patterns and they work incredibly well.
I'd love to take the time to explain this in detail and show how people
who don't believe in systems actually "do" believe they work but don't
realize it. Maybe if I have time later. Of course they won't admit to it
when it's pointed out lol.
(link:s://media.giphy.com/media/3aGZA6WLI9Jde/giphy.gif)
Finally some excitement!
Turbo,
Do you want me to argue for or against your theory? If arguing for I can create some good arguments and throw some math around in a vein attempt to help you with your debate with Steve. If you want me to argue against your theories...then I can do the same. In the meantime I'll just watch. Let me know if you'd like to hire me as your counselor. ;)
Quote from: TurboGenius on Apr 16, 05:18 PM 2018I'd love to take the time to explain this in detail and show how people
who don't believe in systems actually "do" believe they work but don't
realize it. Maybe if I have time later
Are you aware we have a system players only (no AP) section?
A certain person can not post there
Quote from: The General on Apr 16, 06:03 PM 2018In the meantime I'll just watch.
and thats all he could do
QuoteNever look a gift horse in the mouth.....as they say
like this one but is more to it.....unless is Greek one :thumbsup:
Quote from: maestro on Apr 16, 06:11 PM 2018
like this one but is more to it.....unless is Greek one :thumbsup:
I always think of you as a bit of a Trojan :thumbsup:
Turner,
You're messing up the thread with politics. Make way for the Turbo debate.
Start a different thread for the other stuff. ;)
Quote from: The General on Apr 16, 06:26 PM 2018
Turner,
You're messing up the thread with politics. Make way for the Turbo debate.
Start a different thread for the other stuff. ;)
Messing threads up? LMAO. Pot calling the Kettle black or what?
sorry, and I know your opinion is important to you, but I may just want to hear what turbo has to say without scrolling through gifs of unicorns, spiraling roulette wheels and a bald man nodding.
Quote from: RouletteGhost on Apr 16, 01:33 PM 2018Steve you are ruining your own forum. Just so ya know.
I assume you're referring to Caleb.
1. He understands trolling wont be tolerated.
2. At the moment you are even more abrasive than he is. For example, starting the thread against bias players purely to spite Caleb.
3. Actually the forum is very heavily biased (no pun intended) towards "system play". Having myself and Caleb provide another point of view (aka the truth) better balances the forum. It makes the forum a more productive place.
I'm sure you don't agree with that. Don't confuse conflict with unpopular truth.
Is ignorance more productive than unpopular but verifiable truth?Quote from: RouletteGhost on Apr 16, 01:33 PM 2018You are giving General what he wants. An old bitter man who can’t find biased wheels in this day and age. Why are you doing this? You are making me laugh lately
This is what I explained to Turner:
QuoteMy position is what he says needs to be understood. Lately it has almost entirely been just me having to beat the truth into people. It has nothing to do with sales of anything. I'm genuinely trying to steer people in the right direction. Some dont want that help, but everyone still needs to see the other side instead of letting useless theories and holy grails dominate discussions.
Caleb helps with that balance. If people want to avoid discussions with him, they can use the system players section.
I reminded him today to be careful.
Quote from: RouletteGhost on Apr 16, 01:36 PM 2018Why even have a system forum if you are going to say this everyday. LOL. Having something that you hate? Doesn’t make sense.
It's a ROULETTE forum, not just a system forum.
Or should we ignore verifiable facts that every professional in the industry knows?It's really not complicated RG. I'm a roulette enthusiast too. Even if I retired from play or didnt sell anything, I would still maintain the forum. And I would still ensure it is
a BALANCED forum where people are still free to explain unpopular truth.Quote from: RouletteGhost on Apr 16, 01:36 PM 2018Have a roulette system forum and then bash it. Makes sense!
Am i bashing systems, or explaining the truth about what does and doesn't work, and why?
Should I tell everyone they can make a fortune with systems?
Quote from: cht on Apr 16, 01:55 PM 2018I made this observation after only 1month I joined this forum. Owner of systems forum actively bashing systems. Isn't hard to figure it out that's to cordon the crowd.
It's simpler. Most of the time I let people stay ignorant. Every now and then, I have enough of shutting my mouth and decide to help people. It is a simplistic and shallow view to think my responses are about selling something.
Quote from: RouletteGhost on Apr 16, 01:36 PM 2018To bet selection i go
... where the truth is shunned, and ignorance is ignored. You know we have the system player's only section for that.
Quote from: Blueprint on Apr 16, 02:33 PM 2018
Show me 37 UNIQUE numbers in 37 spins.
Prove it. I'll wait.
You haven't understood. Re-read the explanation. Or make a system that relies on rare events never happening. Go win millions.
Quote from: TurboGenius on Apr 16, 05:18 PM 2018You can work a system
around rare events, and even patterns and they work incredibly well.
Turbo, say you were betting on individual numbers. After your rare event trigger, the odds of the next number spinning are...... still 1 in 37.
The rare events are just normal probability. Betting on or against rare events is fallacy.
Quote from: The General on Apr 16, 06:03 PM 2018Turbo,
Do you want me to argue for or against your theory? If arguing for I can create some good arguments and throw some math around in a vein attempt to help you with your debate with Steve. If you want me to argue against your theories...then I can do the same. In the meantime I'll just watch. Let me know if you'd like to hire me as your counselor.
Its very difficult to have any structured debate or discussion, because many people take it personally. And as I've found many times, carefully presenting the truth gets nowhere, because most people dont care or understand.
Quote from: Turner on Apr 16, 05:53 PM 2018What Steve and Caleb do makes people ignorant for longer. Their mistake is forgetting human nature.
For people who put pride before truth, yes it lengthens their learning curve. They are more concerned with being right than finding the truth. Such people don't concern me.
For people who put truth before pride, the unpopular facts (with explanations to verify it) are very helpful, and shorten learning curves. Just as any well-written explanations do. These are the people I'm interested in helping.
Quote from: Turner on Apr 16, 05:53 PM 2018
I have no allegiance to Steve. I wouldnt say we were friends but there seems to be zero friction between us.
I have said on many occasions that I moderate here as a payback to Steve for my being able to be here for the last 8 years totally free.
I tend to be a very loyal person, and I do have a modicum of loyalty to him.
Never look a gift horse in the mouth.....as they say.
This is Steves forum. He pays for it and admins it gratis.
What I will say is this.....
Steve tends to get peoples back up who dont want to hear the truth. He is quite open to new ideas, and encourages them.
No one learned a thing without failing....or even better, failing badly. Steve or Caleb or anyone can not accelerate that learning
If anything, it makes the ignorant more determined to prove they are right, and their path to the truth is bit longer.
What Steve and Caleb do makes people ignorant for longer. Their mistake is forgetting human nature.
I tend to agree with what they say though
See my post link:s://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=20180.msg196356#msg196356
The center to what is known as the "truth" is what's our personal believe about random in roulette.
Ofc it's easier to adopt the assumption that the real roulette game is random which means spins are equally likely and independent - end of story.
Bayes post here perfectly describes another valid view where my inquisitive mind stands exactly with him.
My position is we can't be completely sure since there are undeniable evidence to the contrary, and that permits the open mind that allows for Bayes standpoint.
Quote from: Bayes on May 07, 02:28 PM 2016
Priyanka,
Your question poses a bit of a dilemma for me, because on the one hand, I'm a "math guy". That means I respect the maths and "believe" it. On the other hand, I'm also a system junkie, and without boasting I claim to have done rather well out of roulette playing my systems.
I absolute get what the General is saying. The random game of roulette cannot be beaten because IF spins are equally likely and independent, no winning system is possible - that's one definition of what random MEANS - equally likely and independent. Simple logic.
However, how do I explain the fact that the house edge hasn't caught up with me? The general will say it's because I've essentially been lucky (riding a temporary positive variance), but I know enough about probability and statistics to know that it can't be so, because "luck" runs out eventually. I also know a few others who have been similarly "lucky".
So I propose the following hypothesis which may account for my success. The random game of roulette really only exists in some Platonic realm where mathematical equations are real (not just models of the world) and *dictate* outcomes, which is absurd. There is the random game of roulette and there's the real game which the general exploits because real wheels are not Platonic wheels.
So in the real world we can strike out one of the twin pillars of randomness - that outcomes are equally likely - at least sometimes and for some wheels it is not the case. Is it so absurd, then, to suggest that the remaining pillar of randomness - independence - also exists only in a Platonic realm?
After all, you can't *prove* independence. You can test for it, and of course outcomes really are independent in the sense that each pocket remains on the wheel between spins, but independence can be violated in other ways, and the tests for independence such as Chi-Square etc are just that - tests. And there are any number of ways of testing. Do you know how many statistical tests are out there? literally hundreds, and more being invented all the time.
Testing a simple scenario like "after 10 reds in a row black is more likely" will always return the apparently obvious and common sense result that these events are independent when using the simple tests which everyone knows about (well, all statisticians anyway). No argument from me there, but is that sufficient to put an end to the matter? I don't believe so.
You may argue that non-bias and independence are fundamentally different beasts and that no-one has ever found a wheel which generates dependent outcomes, but plenty of wheels have been found to be biased. But that just begs the question - it *assumes* the very thing to be proved.
All that debate aside, since we know there exist this divide of absolute truth about the random game of roulette on one hand, and this possibility of not completely random.
To declare someone who is open minded enough to not simply accept this absolute believe as ignorant, stupid, shallow, naive and whatnot snide remarks is name-calling exercise that do not add one iota to the argument.
It comes across as the owner of the forum do not accept and is intolerant to contrarian views when the response is the standard "equally likely" and "independent", "odds remain unchanged" template is regurgitated in all posts offering nothing more plus the usual so-called justified name-calling. That action certainly do not reflect the open mind, reveals a mind that lacks imagination. It only manage to stifle contributions.
Why then have a systems forum if the believe is there is only one "truth" ? An obvious question in everybody's mind.
Quote from: cht on Apr 16, 07:44 PM 2018The center to what is known as the "truth" is what's our personal believe about random in roulette.
Does your opinion change reality?
Quote from: cht on Apr 16, 07:44 PM 2018Ofc it's easier to adopt the assumption that the real roulette game is random which means spins are equally likely and independent - end of story.
Nothing is ever "random". As Turner also said, I actively encourage NEW approaches. My problem is only with OLD approaches that we already know and can prove they don't work. One example is repeaters. but even when I explain how everyone can verify this, few properly understand or even bother to properly test. So they stay clueless.
Quote from: cht on Apr 16, 07:44 PM 2018Bayes post here perfectly describes another valid view where my inquisitive mind stands exactly with him.
Again I support NEW approaches. Stay inquisitive. That's the best way. But do not also neglect simple logic and clear tests.
Quote from: cht on Apr 16, 07:44 PM 2018To declare someone who is open minded enough to not simply accept this absolute believe as ignorant, stupid, shallow, naive and whatnot snide remarks is name-calling exercise that do not add one iota to the argument.
But what happens when clear explanations and proof is ignored?
Quote from: cht on Apr 16, 07:44 PM 2018It comes across as the owner of the forum do not accept and is intolerant to contrarian views when the response is the standard "equally likely" and "independent", "odds remain unchanged" template is regurgitated in all posts offering nothing more plus the usual so-called justified name-calling. That action certainly do not reflect the open mind, reveals a mind that lacks imagination. It only manage to stifle contributions.
So when I see people declaring 1+1=42, I dare not say anything because it will seem narrow-minded? It would mean I lack imagination?
Please dont tell me about regurgitation. Take a look at the HG talk, compare verifiable information I explain, and tell me what's more like regurgitation.
Quote from: cht on Apr 16, 07:44 PM 2018Why then have a systems forum if that's the case ? An obvious question in everybody's mind.
It's a roulette forum before being a system forum. I'm not against "systems". I'm against approaches that are guaranteed to eventually lose.
And RG, dont give me that crap that people are just dabbling as a hobby. Most people here are serious about making money from roulette. So why should verifiable fact be stifled in favor of re-invented losing approaches that make casinos billions? If you just want to tinker, try the system players only forum where Caleb cant post, and I sure wont post.
Quote from: Steve on Apr 16, 07:41 PM 2018You haven't understood. Re-read the explanation. Or make a system that relies on rare events never happening. Go win millions.
I understand, Steve. Do you? What I'm stating is a FACT. If you weren't so wrapped up in your sales offers you may actually learn something new.
It's already been spelled out for you many times by people who know way more than I do. But I do know this is a FACT, not my opinion.
Quote from: Blueprint on Apr 16, 08:03 PM 2018I understand, Steve. Do you? What I'm stating is a FACT. If you weren't so wrapped up in your sales offers you may actually learn something new.
You know every professional in the gaming industry shares my views. So forget the sales talk bullshit. It's not my motivation. It's more a convenient thing for people to say when they have nothing else.
But ok, you claim i'm the ignorant one. So teach me.
What I'd like is ONE EXAMPLE of how using rare events will improve your chances of winning. Just ONE clear example please.
Quote from: Blueprint on Apr 16, 08:03 PM 2018It's already been spelled out for you many times by people who know way more than I do.
Maybe, but you understand it, right? That's why you're saying it's FACT, right?
So then you can explain it to me, right?
Quote from: Blueprint on Apr 16, 08:03 PM 2018But I do know this is a FACT, not my opinion.
Ok, so then explain it to my dumb head, please.
Quote from: DoctorSudoku on Apr 16, 03:24 PM 2018
Actually, alrelax being a moderator over at betselection is a minor worry for you.
A bigger -- much bigger -- worry for you is this:
link:://global.espn.com/football/manchester-city/story/3459197/pep-guardiola-near-one-year-manchester-city-extension-sources
Pep will be at City for at least two more years.
Which means your gang of mercenaries will be watching the league -- helplessly and hopelessly -- from the sidelines for at least two more years.
:twisted: :twisted:
IF city wins CL then you earn the bragging rights to hail Pep. Short of that the gazillion oil funded project is a failure. So complete the failure to lose both legs. *facepalm* Until then, SIT DOWN. :)
Quote from: Steve on Apr 16, 08:09 PM 2018
You know every professional in the gaming industry shares my views. So forget the sales talk bullshit. It's not my motivation. It's more a convenient thing for people to say when they have nothing else.
But ok, you claim i'm the ignorant one. So teach me.
What I'd like is ONE EXAMPLE of how using rare events will improve your chances of winning. Just ONE clear example please.
Maybe, but you understand it, right? That's why you're saying it's FACT, right?
So then you can explain it to me, right?
Ok, so then explain it to my dumb head, please.
The problem is that we're not talking about a rare event. We're talking about it NEVER happening. See the difference?
Quote from: Turner on Apr 16, 07:04 PM 2018
I may just want to hear what turbo has to say without scrolling through gifs of unicorns, spiraling roulette wheels and a bald man nodding.
LMAO
i see passive aggressiveness from the general to turner.
clear to see general is jealous.
listen, turner is a better moderator than you EVER will be or would have been...he doesn't let emotion play into his moderating decisions, like you used to....not easy being unbiased....
Quote from: Blueprint on Apr 16, 08:30 PM 2018The problem is that we're not talking about a rare event. We're talking about it NEVER happening. See the difference?
There is a difference in principle. But it actually will happen, given enough spins.
But let's talk just in your lifetime. ANY specific sequence of 37 spins will PROBABLY NEVER HAPPEN in your lifetime. So why not choose any random sequence of 37 spins to bet will never happen??
Just try it. Try to make a system around an event that will never happen in your lifetime. It doesn't work. It's classic fallacy, like seeing 10 reds in a row and expecting 11 reds will never happen. But the odds of red/black are the same.
None of this is opinion. It is absolute fact. It is incredibly well tested and established. It seems only on gambling forums is this fundamental and universally proven truth absent.
Quote from: RouletteGhost on Apr 16, 08:34 PM 2018listen, turner is a better moderator than you EVER will be or would have been...he doesn't let emotion play into his moderating decisions, like you used to....not easy being unbiased....
Are you talking to me or Caleb? Turner's moderating policy is based on rules I set. The rules are fair and balanced. Generally we don't moderate anything besides the obvious bullshit. If you are talking to Caleb, actually I agree he was biased and unfair as a mod. But it's quite irrelevant to the discussion.
i was addressing caleb
obviously without him there is peace
people discuss their strategies in peace and noone argues....
the everlasting need to condescend people is healthy for no forum
id rather read stupid systems
Quote from: Steve on Apr 16, 08:41 PM 2018
There is a difference in principle. But it actually will happen, given enough spins.
But let's talk just in your lifetime. ANY specific sequence of 37 spins will PROBABLY NEVER HAPPEN in your lifetime. So why not choose any random sequence of 37 spins to bet will never happen??
Just try it. Try to make a system around an event that will never happen in your lifetime. It doesn't work. It's classic fallacy, like seeing 10 reds in a row and expecting 11 reds will never happen. But the odds of red/black are the same.
None of this is opinion. It is absolute fact. It is incredibly well tested and established. It seems only on gambling forums is this fundamental and universally proven truth absent.
Are you talking to me or Caleb? Turner's moderating policy is based on rules I set. The rules are fair and balanced. Generally we don't moderate anything besides the obvious bullshit. If you are talking to Caleb, actually I agree he was biased and unfair as a mod. But it's quite irrelevant to the discussion.
Whatever you say, Steve. Got it. It’s a shame you’re unwilling to SEE differently. The difference is coming up with another 37 spin sequence will contain repeats. Won’t it? If not, then you would have 37 unique numbers.
Think of it like this...
How many ways can 37 different numbers occur within 37 spins?
Now, how many different ways can it not be 37 different numbers within 37 spins?
If you think about it this way, then you'll find that there are a gazillion more ways for it not to hit 37 unique numbers.
The 37 spins that inevitably occur are just as unique as the specific sequence 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,...36
It's just that nobody is ever looking for the specific sequence that does inevitably hit.
Another comparison is with the lottery. Many people believe the 1,2,3,4,5,6 is far less likely to occur than 1,23,35,38,41,53, but both are just as likely to occur.
Hope the above helps.
So no matter how you re-arrange the numbers on the table, the math stays the same.
I'm recording and at spin 102 I'm finally down to 2 numbers not appeared.
That means at spin 101 I had 3 numbers that hadn't appeared.
So a street going for 101 spins is a "rare event" in my example.
Now it's appeared at spin 102 ! Player "2" starts, silly bastard waited
for that "rare event" before playing.
The math is the same, regardless of what the numbers are.
So here's a street bet - now that the rare event has happened, let's see
the results.
Spins until a win on any of these 3 numbers (street)
16 spins (we still have 2 that haven't appeared) Betting 1 number and won in 16 spins, not 37
9 spins and the next to last number appears. Now we're betting them both.
6 spins later the last number appears. Now we are betting all 3 - a street bet.
2 spins later, a win
10 spins later, another win
12 spins later, another win
2 spins later, another win
18 spins later, another win
26 spins later, another win
8 spins, win
2 spins, win
14 spins, win
6 spins, win
26 spins, win
11 spins, win
1 spin, win
11 spins, win So about 1 win every 10.23 spins.
That's fine - the expected is 1 in 12.33 spins.
Player "2" did a little better than expected with +56 units flat betting.
---
But what about player 1 - who didn't think there was a benefit in trying to
take advantage of a "rare event".. he started from spin 1.
He finishes at the same time as player 2 - he's down 198 units !
Here are the charts - so there is NO benefit in attacking after a rare event
has occurred (in this example a street sleeping for 101 spins) ???
I ran this in RX of course as I typed this, wouldn't want anyone to think I
hand picked some spins that benefited by explanation.
So if the people who think it's rare to see some event happen such as
a street sleeping for 100+ spins, then surely they have to admit that this event
happening twice back-to-back on the same street are also rare.
Therefore, you can't say there's no value in waiting for a rare event to happen
and at the same time argue that when it does happen - it won't happen again.
Imagine the numbers rolling out of "random" and the last 5 numbers
appear and we keep tracking. NONE of them show again until they are the
last 5 numbers again ???? That's absurd. Of course there's a benefit because
we know what "won't happen" and can use this to our advantage.
Here's the two player's charts. They are the same except for one thing -
the "rare event" destroyed player 1 - it had NO effect on Player 2.
You can't lose a single unit by not betting on a number that doesn't appear.
The same, you can't lose a single unit on a rare event happening if you aren't
betting on it while it's happening. Now once it happens.... you can bet that
it won't repeat itself.
(link:s://s18.postimg.cc/8sllqnasp/player1.png)
(link:s://s18.postimg.cc/ljzrx67q1/player2.png)
The only difference here is that 1 player could care less about the rare event
happening and lost because of it - the other waited for it to happen and then benefited from it NOT happening again (in the near future)
So this is one little example, there are tons of them - and the results are
better and better based on how "rare" the event is, because the likelihood of
it repeating now is so small it's completely unlikely to happen while the player
is in the same session.
either GF realllllly sucks
or the general wanted to bring this over here for a larger audience
(link:s://media.giphy.com/media/sW6P26sp3HFvy/giphy.gif)
Another thing is the constant argument that
1,2,3 is no different than 32,12,4 and how you
might notice 1,2,3 but wouldn't think twice about 32,12,4 yet
they have the exact same chance of appearing. Fair enough.
But what about rare events ? Or how long it takes before sleepers
appear ?
You can test this yourself - wait for the longest street to appear
and note the number of spins. Then wait for one of the last 3
numbers to appear and note the number of spins. That's exactly
the same as one of the numbers in the last street appearing.
It's all the same right ? A street is 3 numbers, the last 3 numbers to appear
and a street bet should produce the same results right ?
Nope, not even close.
(link:s://s18.postimg.cc/z4v59nn2x/untitled.png)
The last street "could" be equal to one of the last 3 numbers appearing
ONLY if those last numbers are in that street. They aren't a huge amount
of the time.
So the amount of numbers is the same - the results are different.
Seeing 1,2,3 might be the same odds as seeing 32,12,4 but if
you're looking at rare events or patterns - (see above)
the last street always shows before the last 3 numbers.
Turbo, if the spins you used did not suit your hypothesis, would you still have posted the results? I'm not sure you would have. It's like 17 spins if I'm reading right. That's your proof of concept?
What you're saying is like choosing 5 random numbers (at the start), and betting that they wont ALL spin in 30 spins. It's a rare event, right? Those 5 numbers are no different to any other 5 numbers in terms of if or when they will spin. So the bet selection changed nothing.
The fact that you chose the numbers at the start makes no difference. Neither does an elaborate bet selection method that expects past spins to influence future spins.
Quote from: TurboGenius on Apr 16, 10:37 PM 2018Another thing is the constant argument that
1,2,3 is no different than 32,12,4 and how you
might notice 1,2,3 but wouldn't think twice about 32,12,4 yet
they have the exact same chance of appearing. Fair enough.
But what about rare events ? Or how long it takes before sleepers
appear ?
Pick any of your sleepers or hit numbers, and the odds of them appearing either next or sometime soon are the same as any random number.
Your explanations are really as clear as mud. I'm only understanding part of what you are saying. But let's nail this down and see who is right and wrong. Please, make your explanation crystal clear.
Turbo,
If I'm understanding your example correctly, then you've merely curve fitted the results. Unintentionally I'm sure.
It looks like you purposefully put player one on the worst numbers you could find (by looking ahead), rather than any two numbers at random,
and player two on the numbers only after player one had been playing them for a while. The way you've explained the test is rather difficult to follow, as I'm not even really sure what it is that he was betting on.
Perhaps you can create a better example. By the way, the graphs kind of confuse the example.
In short, it appears that you're not comparing apples to apples. It would be like me looking for ten reds in a row, and then starting player one from the start betting black, but starting player two betting on black on spin 11. Surely you can see the flaw in the testing.
Here's another example of curve fitting...
Player one decides to see what the longest losing streak is for red as he's certain that randomness has limits. The player searches over hundreds of spins and discovers that the longest streak is NINE losing spins in a row. He then declares that, "Nine losing spins is certainly the longest streak that he could find in 512 spins." He then plans to build a sure fire way to win by betting a progression starting after only six misses in a row.
Player two comes along and says to player one, "You're wasting your time by waiting. "
Player one then says, "No, I have proof, as I have gone through the last 512 spins to find the longest losing streak and the longest that I could find was only nine spins in length."
Player two then says, "No, you've tested your theory only once, because you've only run your test once, rather than testing it 512 times.
You see, you have to wait around for about 512 spins for nine in a row to occur... but you need to conduct your test 512 times to see if the trend continues or ends at only nine."
(Awe this too is probably a terrible example. I'll reword a better example tomorrow.)
Quote from: The General on Apr 17, 02:17 AM 2018
(Awe this too is probably a terrible example. I'll reword a better example tomorrow.)
Lmao ! Tomorrow then.
Do continue this interesting discussion. :thumbsup:
Quote from: TurboGenius on Apr 16, 10:37 PM 2018
Another thing is the constant argument that
1,2,3 is no different than 32,12,4 and how you
might notice 1,2,3 but wouldn't think twice about 32,12,4 yet
they have the exact same chance of appearing. Fair enough.
But what about rare events ? Or how long it takes before sleepers
appear ?
You can test this yourself - wait for the longest street to appear
and note the number of spins. Then wait for one of the last 3
numbers to appear and note the number of spins. That's exactly
the same as one of the numbers in the last street appearing.
It's all the same right ? A street is 3 numbers, the last 3 numbers to appear
and a street bet should produce the same results right ?
Nope, not even close.
(link:s://s18.postimg.cc/z4v59nn2x/untitled.png)
The last street "could" be equal to one of the last 3 numbers appearing
ONLY if those last numbers are in that street. They aren't a huge amount
of the time.
So the amount of numbers is the same - the results are different.
Seeing 1,2,3 might be the same odds as seeing 32,12,4 but if
you're looking at rare events or patterns - (see above)
the last street always shows before the last 3 numbers.
That's 42,840th worse street vs fixed 12th worse street.
Quote from: TurboGenius on Apr 16, 09:40 PM 2018
So no matter how you re-arrange the numbers on the table, the math stays the same.
I'm recording and at spin 102 I'm finally down to 2 numbers not appeared.
That means at spin 101 I had 3 numbers that hadn't appeared.
So a street going for 101 spins is a "rare event" in my example.
Now it's appeared at spin 102 ! Player "2" starts, silly bastard waited
for that "rare event" before playing.
The math is the same, regardless of what the numbers are.
So here's a street bet - now that the rare event has happened, let's see
the results.
Spins until a win on any of these 3 numbers (street)
16 spins (we still have 2 that haven't appeared) Betting 1 number and won in 16 spins, not 37
9 spins and the next to last number appears. Now we're betting them both.
6 spins later the last number appears. Now we are betting all 3 - a street bet.
2 spins later, a win
10 spins later, another win
12 spins later, another win
2 spins later, another win
18 spins later, another win
26 spins later, another win
8 spins, win
2 spins, win
14 spins, win
6 spins, win
26 spins, win
11 spins, win
1 spin, win
11 spins, win So about 1 win every 10.23 spins.
That's fine - the expected is 1 in 12.33 spins.
Player "2" did a little better than expected with +56 units flat betting.
---
But what about player 1 - who didn't think there was a benefit in trying to
take advantage of a "rare event".. he started from spin 1.
He finishes at the same time as player 2 - he's down 198 units !
Here are the charts - so there is NO benefit in attacking after a rare event
has occurred (in this example a street sleeping for 101 spins) ???
I ran this in RX of course as I typed this, wouldn't want anyone to think I
hand picked some spins that benefited by explanation.
So if the people who think it's rare to see some event happen such as
a street sleeping for 100+ spins, then surely they have to admit that this event
happening twice back-to-back on the same street are also rare.
Therefore, you can't say there's no value in waiting for a rare event to happen
and at the same time argue that when it does happen - it won't happen again.
Imagine the numbers rolling out of "random" and the last 5 numbers
appear and we keep tracking. NONE of them show again until they are the
last 5 numbers again ???? That's absurd. Of course there's a benefit because
we know what "won't happen" and can use this to our advantage.
Here's the two player's charts. They are the same except for one thing -
the "rare event" destroyed player 1 - it had NO effect on Player 2.
You can't lose a single unit by not betting on a number that doesn't appear.
The same, you can't lose a single unit on a rare event happening if you aren't
betting on it while it's happening. Now once it happens.... you can bet that
it won't repeat itself.
(link:s://s18.postimg.cc/8sllqnasp/player1.png)
(link:s://s18.postimg.cc/ljzrx67q1/player2.png)
The only difference here is that 1 player could care less about the rare event
happening and lost because of it - the other waited for it to happen and then benefited from it NOT happening again (in the near future)
So this is one little example, there are tons of them - and the results are
better and better based on how "rare" the event is, because the likelihood of
it repeating now is so small it's completely unlikely to happen while the player
is in the same session.
It surely did not happen to player 2 who waited.
It did happen to that 1player who did not wait.
Everthing else is the same.
Lets see if anyone can debunk this.
I would love to respond in detail, to debunk or give credit. Problem is I find the explanation as clear as mud. Turbo, please more clearly explain what you mean.
Quote from: Steve on Apr 17, 02:51 AM 2018Problem is I find the explanation as clear as mud. Turbo, please more clearly explain what you mean.
It's perfectly clear
Clear to you. Parts are ambiguous.
From what i gather, your proof is a set of spins that match your hypothesis.
Naturally the player that bets less will end up with more money remaining. And if there happens to be some lucky wins, they may even profit. That's all your data is showing.
Its like saying:
QuoteTwo players sit at the table for 100 spins.
Player 1 bets on all 1000 spins and loses $500.
Player 2 bets on only FIVE of the spins, and he won once.
This is proof it works.
What am i missing here?
Quote from: TurboGenius on Apr 16, 10:37 PM 2018
Another thing is the constant argument that
1,2,3 is no different than 32,12,4 and how you
might notice 1,2,3 but wouldn't think twice about 32,12,4 yet
they have the exact same chance of appearing. Fair enough.
But what about rare events ? Or how long it takes before sleepers
appear ?
You can test this yourself - wait for the longest street to appear
and note the number of spins. Then wait for one of the last 3
numbers to appear and note the number of spins. That's exactly
the same as one of the numbers in the last street appearing.
It's all the same right ? A street is 3 numbers, the last 3 numbers to appear
and a street bet should produce the same results right ?
Nope, not even close.
(link:s://s18.postimg.cc/z4v59nn2x/untitled.png)
The last street "could" be equal to one of the last 3 numbers appearing
ONLY if those last numbers are in that street. They aren't a huge amount
of the time.
So the amount of numbers is the same - the results are different.
Seeing 1,2,3 might be the same odds as seeing 32,12,4 but if
you're looking at rare events or patterns - (see above)
the last street always shows before the last 3 numbers.
If i understand your point correctly, then your error is forgetting there are lots of possible groups of 3 numbers, but only one of a particular street.
Of course any possible 3 numbers will spin more frequently than a specific 3 numbers, because there are lots of combinations vs only one combination.
If I've misunderstood you, please clarify.
Quote from: Steve on Apr 17, 01:37 AM 2018It's like 17 spins if I'm reading right. That's your proof of concept?
How is it 17 spins ?
The first example Player 1 and 2 played 290 spins on the exact same numbers.
Player 2 waited for a rare event and player 1 didn't. If the chart alone doesn't demonstrate the difference in results - then nothing else will.
Quote from: The General on Apr 17, 01:47 AM 2018If I'm understanding your example correctly, then you've merely curve fitted the results. Unintentionally I'm sure.
It looks like you purposefully put player one on the worst numbers you could find (by looking ahead), rather than any two numbers at random
Nonsense and you know it.
Why would it matter if I put the players on any 3 numbers on the table ?
The results would be the same according to you guys, so player 1 got unlucky and
played the 3 worst numbers there were to play. Player 2 played the exact same numbers
only he waited for the rare event before playing. Big difference in results.
But there should be no difference right ? Player 1 picked the worst 3 numbers from the start - but in any other argument you would say that's what kills system players - because the chances of those 3 being the worst are the same as picking any 3 numbers.
Now you can see you're clearly wrong but have no ability to admit it.
I'm not performing like a monkey for you two, which is the only purpose in keeping the conversation going. I'm not wasting my time and you sure as hell aren't wasting my time.
You think I'll run in circles explaining what I clearly explained - not this time.
Explain it away to yourself instead of pointing to the obvious and saying I'm correct.
Nonsense.
Steve, the god of roulette computer !
Dear Steve, I have managed to get your computer working as a computer program and it's doing fine, I don't need to measure speed live as you do with your computers, I use an approximation/ projection of the wheel quotes, the question is, do. you think i will have chance in deploying the program on a small device and take it with me to land based casino, will I be able to use it there, I don't need to monitor the wheel as you do, I just need to input the numbers... what do you think ?
How is that even related to the topic ?
Yep, I think it's time to work on that book and help people
with it - instead of this "show" on forums where you're
supposed to perform for someone's entertainment and
everything is diverted to computers or bias wheels and
anyone serious about winning with systems is insulted
and put down - or made to look like a clown at a circus.
Shame. Well, you're both done wasting my time.
Quote from: TurboGenius on Apr 17, 07:32 AM 2018
How is that even related to the topic ?
Yep, I think it's time to work on that book and help people
with it - instead of this "show" on forums where you're
supposed to perform for someone's entertainment and
everything is diverted to computers or bias wheels and
anyone serious about winning with systems is insulted
and put down - or made to look like a clown at a circus.
Shame. Well, you're both done wasting my time.
To whom are you directing your attacktalk ?
Turbo, i will again carefully read your explanation, but it would help if you could make it clearer. Its it that hard to accept i dont find your explanatiin clear? Can anyone else explain it to me?
Rb, the principles behind a roulette computer are simple. I have free computers, really cheap computers, value computers and the best possible. The differences are large and mostly explained on my site. Dont expect magic results with a basic algorithm unless ball scatter is easily predictable, in which case even my free vb course is enough.
Yes you can put in on a device. But give thought to how it will be used covertly.
Don't run away turbo. I just answered unrelated questions, no big deal.
Please address my response.
Quote from: bikemotorman on Apr 16, 02:55 PM 2018But the real reason the casinos fix cards is to destroy the trends that both guessers and Pros depend on. Hand Shuffled cards produce reliable trends. But hand shuffled cards have all but disappeared in the casinos. We MIGHT see them in high stakes rooms at very high stakes. But that's about it.
Hi Bikemotorman,
I totally agree with your observation about the preshuffled cards for Baccarat. At my B&M casino they bring them in by the pallet load in the baccarat rooms. It is too easy for them to get these cards preshuffled in an order that will guarantee they clean up against the pattern systems and taking advantage of human psychology.
In terms of casinos offering hand shuffle I can vouch for the Casino Barcelona which has 2 tables both linked to electronic tables have hand shuffled games.
In terms of developing a system based on rare events, my experience is for Baccarat at least this is proving very successful using the Pattern Attack method where you are just looking for two patterns out of all the many that can form. By restricting your betting to just those patterns and ignoring the set of other patterns you are only exposing your risk to one set of conditions. Now my experience is that the MAJORITY of times the gambler WINS these bets and only rarely they get a loss thus being in overall PROFITABLE position. This is the opposite to the gambler who covers the rest of the set of patterns where the MAJORITY of the time the he will LOSE and only win less times thus being in overall LOSING position.
The key to playing any game of chance is to bet LESS not MORE. So pick the opportunities wisely with CONSISTENCY and DISCIPLINE and have the PATIENCE to NOT bet the other times and you should end up in the LONG RUN in a PROFITABLE position. This is just COMMON SENSE. LESS is MORE.
Cheers,
Ricky
The universe doesn't care about our perception of events, or belief they'll never happen. It just does what it does. And we don't get with the program, we lose.
In fairness to the General I think he might have a point here regarding possible (unintentional) curve-fitting.
Quote from: TurboGenius on Apr 16, 09:40 PM 2018I'm recording and at spin 102 I'm finally down to 2 numbers not appeared.
That means at spin 101 I had 3 numbers that hadn't appeared.
So a street going for 101 spins is a "rare event" in my example.
Now it's appeared at spin 102 ! Player "2" starts, silly bastard waited
for that "rare event" before playing.
Turbo, there's no mention of player #1 at this point. In order for player #2 to take advantage of that rare event not repeating, you obviously had to pick the worst performing set of 3 numbers.
Quote
But what about player 1 - who didn't think there was a benefit in trying to
take advantage of a "rare event".. he started from spin 1.
He finishes at the same time as player 2 - he's down 198 units !
But it seems as though you're retrospectively allocating those losing numbers to player #1, so it's not surprising that he is way behind player #2. Again, not suggesting that this deliberate in order to fool anyone; it's an easy enough mistake to make.
A more objective way to test the difference would be to use two different spin samples : bet on 3 random #s from "spin 1" in one sample and in the other pick 3 numbers which have just "woken up" after a 100+ spin sleep, then calculate the hit rates for both. You would have to repeat this over a few dozen "experiments" in order to get a statistically valid result.
I undestand TG's explanation fully. Probably some other silent lurkers do as well. No, I am not going to explain it again. Just read his original post carefully and watch the graphs.
I was hoping if steve, general(hopefully tomorrow he does better) or anyone can give their pov. However, it must be to address more pertinent on the point of what TG posted and not something unrelated. So to contribute you have to get your understanding correct first - I don't think another round of explanation can make it any clearer.
The topic of discussion is if there is any value in "rare events".
Can "waiting" for "rare events" make any difference in the outcomes, can they be taken advantage of ?
There are 2 separate matters - 1. "waiting", and 2. "rare events".
The contention is the consistency in applying random arguments.
Make your case.
It's not clear to me on what basis Turbo has made this comparison. There is supposedly a "better" way to pick numbers than randomly and he has tried to make the point, but I'm not sure he's succeeded.
In any case, if he's correct about the superiority of betting against "rare" events to repeat then the test I've suggested should confirm what he's tried to show in his post. Why don't you try it yourself?
Well then let's consider the principle. 3 consecutive reds is rare compared to RBR, BBR or RRB (3 combinations vs 1).
That's just basic probability. But how can we change the odds in this case with turbos approach? Anyone?
So player2 won a lot betting on sleepers while player1 lost on the hot numbers. Yes, that... could happen. Haha
If we are betting against rare events, why don't we take the simple example.
37 spin cycles?
I can't remember the last Time i saw More then 30 Different numbers appear in 37 spins?
Why don't we All tey to solve that?
Less tracking and it must be possible to profit from the fact that above 30 numbers is rare and that we find atleast 4 or 5 repeaters in every cycle.
Just a thought.
Quote from: jekhb76 on Apr 17, 08:47 AM 2018
If we are betting against rare events, why don't we take the simple example.
37 spin cycles?
I can't remember the last Time i saw More then 30 Different numbers appear in 37 spins?
Why don't we All tey to solve that?
Less tracking and it must be possible to profit from the fact that above 30 numbers is rare and that we find atleast 4 or 5 repeaters in every cycle.
Just a thought.
I feel your pain but, your assumption is like teenage sex: everyone talks about it, nobody really knows how to do it, everyone thinks everyone knows how to do it
-:)
Why don't we try to solve the 37 spin problem, when solved, we can All make money and Sleep better for once and we can stop to pick on one and another All the Time. We All here for the same reason, why not put our Heads togeter for once. If we can't do this in the open, why not Make a private room Just like on roulette30 and discus is there further, with only respected members only with a min. Posts and rating before he or she can pertisipate. That way, we don't Have to be affraid that it will be All over the net in No Time. Again Just a thought for helping eachother instead of fighting All the Time, and for once solve the roulette puzzle for once and for All.
Quote from: Roulettebeater on Apr 17, 08:54 AM 2018
I feel your pain but, your assumption is like teenage sex: everyone talks about it, nobody really knows how to do it, everyone thinks everyone knows how to do it
-:)
I know, but why do i Have the feeling that we already know the awnser, and that it can be done. But knowing something and putting it togethet are two Different things.
There are so many great math guys here on this Forum, why can't we All work togethet for once.
If something needs testing for many spins. Just ask me, i Will Help. And i'm sure many would. But we need to have the same goal here, not An owm agenda.
Because it's illusion, wake up !
Quote from: Steve on Apr 17, 08:36 AM 2018Well then let's consider the principle. 3 consecutive reds is rare compared to RBR, BBR or RRB (3 combinations vs 1).
That's just basic probability. But how can we change the odds in this case with turbos approach? Anyone?
By analogy with his street system, wait until a pattern hasn't hit for a long time, then start betting on it when it wakes up. It doesn't matter which pattern you pick because they all have the same chance.
Quote from: psimoes on Apr 17, 08:44 AM 2018
So player2 won a lot betting on sleepers while player1 lost on the hot numbers. Yes, that... could happen. Haha
But player 1 wasn't betting on hot numbers.
Yeah I didn't bother to read the full post. Kind of disrespectful, I know.
Quote from: jekhb76 on Apr 17, 09:00 AM 2018There are so many great math guys here on this Forum, why can't we All work togethet for once.
Yeah but the more you know about maths the less likely you are to believe that there is a winning system. ;D
Personally, I think the arguments are more about probability, odds are consistently 1/37. Probability changes dependence on the bet. True random can give you 37 zeroes in a row with odds still being 1/37 per spin, the probability of that happening is the same as a Victoria
Secret supermodel seeing this post, tracking me down through the forum, knocking on my front door to ask me out
Quote from: Roulettebeater on Apr 17, 09:01 AM 2018
Because it's illusion, wake up !
Well i May not be in the Turbo Camp anymore, but one thing i'm pretty sure he has Right, is that everything in roulette can be worked out useing the Right math.
There must be something we can do with the information that we will always (in our Life playing roulette) at least 4 repeaters and that the Most we will See are 33 Different numbers, maybe 34, but that's it. Not saying it is impossible to See this event happening, but it is a very rare event.
And don't say that the chanses are the same for every other thing , it is All about the here and now and that we can makeoney out of it. The wordt scenario i can think of is when you are getting the 4 repeaters in the last spins 34-37. But they Will come. So now we only Have to work out the math to reach a min. Profit of one unit when we get 1-4 hits within the cycle.
Easy :smile:
With time and hopefully few losses you'll see once there is an edge favouring the player any system can win, no matter how absurd it might seem. It doesn't work the other way around.
Quote from: Steve on Apr 17, 08:11 AM 2018
The universe doesn't care about our perception of events, or belief they'll never happen. It just does what it does. And we don't get with the program, we lose.
In a thunderstorm I'd bet a million dollars a lightning never strikes the same place twice in the same minute.
You don't!?! :thumbsup:
Casino games is the same thing...
QuoteSo no matter how you re-arrange the numbers on the table, the math stays the same.
I'm recording and at spin 102 I'm finally down to 2 numbers not appeared.
That means at spin 101 I had 3 numbers that hadn't appeared.
So a street going for 101 spins is a "rare event" in my example.
Now it's appeared at spin 102 ! Player "2" starts, silly bastard waited
for that "rare event" before playing.
The math is the same, regardless of what the numbers are.
So here's a street bet - now that the rare event has happened, let's see
the results.
Spins until a win on any of these 3 numbers (street)
16 spins (we still have 2 that haven't appeared) Betting 1 number and won in 16 spins, not 37
9 spins and the next to last number appears. Now we're betting them both.
6 spins later the last number appears. Now we are betting all 3 - a street bet.
2 spins later, a win
10 spins later, another win
12 spins later, another win
2 spins later, another win
18 spins later, another win
26 spins later, another win
8 spins, win
2 spins, win
14 spins, win
6 spins, win
26 spins, win
11 spins, win
1 spin, win
11 spins, win So about 1 win every 10.23 spins.
That's fine - the expected is 1 in 12.33 spins.
Player "2" did a little better than expected with +56 units flat betting.
---
But what about player 1 - who didn't think there was a benefit in trying to
take advantage of a "rare event".. he started from spin 1.
He finishes at the same time as player 2 - he's down 198 units !
Here are the charts - so there is NO benefit in attacking after a rare event
has occurred (in this example a street sleeping for 101 spins) ???
I ran this in RX of course as I typed this, wouldn't want anyone to think I
hand picked some spins that benefited by explanation.
So if the people who think it's rare to see some event happen such as
a street sleeping for 100+ spins, then surely they have to admit that this event
happening twice back-to-back on the same street are also rare.
Therefore, you can't say there's no value in waiting for a rare event to happen
and at the same time argue that when it does happen - it won't happen again.
Imagine the numbers rolling out of "random" and the last 5 numbers
appear and we keep tracking. NONE of them show again until they are the
last 5 numbers again ???? That's absurd. Of course there's a benefit because
we know what "won't happen" and can use this to our advantage.
Here's the two player's charts. They are the same except for one thing -
the "rare event" destroyed player 1 - it had NO effect on Player 2.
You can't lose a single unit by not betting on a number that doesn't appear.
The same, you can't lose a single unit on a rare event happening if you aren't
betting on it while it's happening. Now once it happens.... you can bet that
it won't repeat itself.
Turbo,
Here's a better example using your type of comparison.
Player one starts playing immediately on the number 9.
He hits on the first spin
He hits on the second spin
He hits on the third spin
He hits on the forth spin
He hits on the tenth spin
He hits on the 24th spin
He stops playing on spin 72, after having won six times in only 72 spins!
Player two decides that it's a bad idea to bet until a number has gone at least 38 spins without hitting.
He then begins betting on spin 62.
He bets for the next 72 spins, but never hits a single spin.
So there you have it. Proof that rare events is a horrible way to play!
(link:s://greenlivingblogorguk.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/fotolia_32489228_xs.jpg)
Player one equity graph
(link:s://lexleader.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/down-graph.jpg)
Player two equity graph
--------------
Now do you understand why your original example was as absurd as the example that I provided above?
@general
You're are too Strong for turbo.
Come down a little and let the game "one go here, one go there" ...
Give turbo a little chance to beat you back, and we will be all watching the furious fight.
Haha
-:)
The correct way of debating the subject is to demonstrate how basic probability is changed by "waiting around for rare events." Not by curve fitting stories like the one that Turbo and I wrote above.
The number of pockets on the wheel determines the probability of winning. Agreed?
Player one begins playing immediately. He looks down and counts the pockets. Yep, there's 37 of them and it's a single zero wheel. So he begins betting.
His probability of winning on a single number bet is 1 in 37.
Player two decides to wait for a number to sleep for 400 spins before he begins to bet.
After all, by now there must be fewer pockets, right?
He then looks down to count the number of pockets on the wheel.
He counts them and realizes that there are still 37 numbers on the wheel.
This means that his probability of winning on a single number bet is also 1 in 37.
Dismayed, he decided to wait around for a number to again not hit for 400 spins and restarts the process.
He then counts the numbers remaining on the wheel again and realizes that there are still 37 numbers and that the probability of winning remains unchanged.
Now the real question here for everyone that believes in rare events is, how many times do you need to run the test above before you realize that the same number of pockets remain on the wheel, regardless of how long you stand around waiting for your rare events?
I don't know about you but i'm All about rare events.
If someone would Tell me that there is a chance that no 3peater Will come before spin 75, i would say sure, you're Right, it is possible. But Oh what fun i would Have with All the money i would Have won until that event Will happen :twisted: and Yes, then it happens at some Point, so what, i still would Have had a blast with All the things i did with the money i would Have won.
It's the same with goin': on An expensive Holiday, when it's over, you won't get Back All the money you would Have spend on your Holiday, but you still Have that great thought, how wonderful it was. Think about it.
The thing is the rare events that can destroy your bank are not scheduled to happen only after you make that fortune. They can happen any time soon and even more than once.
QuoteI don't know about you but i'm All about rare events.
If someone would Tell me that there is a chance that no 3peater Will come before spin 75, i would say sure, you're Right, it is possible. But Oh what fun i would Have with All the money i would Have won until that event Will happen :twisted: and Yes, then it happens at some Point, so what, i still would Have had a blast with All the things i did with the money i would Have won.
It's the same with goin': on An expensive Holiday, when it's over, you won't get Back All the money you would Have spend on your Holiday, but you still Have that great thought, how wonderful it was. Think about it.
Jekh,
What do you feel determines the probability of winning on a number if it's not related the number of pockets in which the ball can land?
QuoteThe thing is the rare events that can destroy your bank are not scheduled to happen only after you make that fortune. They can happen any time soon and even more than once.
Yep. I certainly agree.
This argument of 37 pockets remain unchanged.
What is the max number of consecutive repeating numbers ?
5 ?
Why have we not seen 10 or 20 consecutive repeats since random has no limits, right ? :question:
QuoteThe argument of 37 pockets remain unchanged.
What is the max number of consecutive repeating numbers ?
5 ? Why have we not seen 10 or 20 since random has no limits, right ?
I've seen five in a row twice.
The reason you don't see 10 or 20 in a row is because there's only ONE way for it to hit in that way, but there are a bazillion ways for it NOT to hit in that way. HOWEVER the 20 spins that hit are just as rare as 20 in a row, because they too represent just one possible pattern. It's just that nobody was probably looking for that exact pattern/sequence of numbers.
Quote from: The General on Apr 17, 10:44 AM 2018Now the real question here for everyone that believes in rare events is, how many times do you need to run the test above before you realize that the same number of pockets remain on the wheel, regardless of how long you stand around waiting for your rare events?
True, but most people wouldn't be satisfied with this "proof", and they have a point because you could say the same thing about betting on hot numbers, but sometimes there is a good reason why numbers may be "hot". Still, if you assume outcomes are random then it's a bullet-proof and very simple argument, but not very effective it seems, not on gambling forums anyway. ;D
Quote from: psimoes on Apr 17, 11:11 AM 2018
The thing is the rare events that can destroy your bank are not scheduled to happen only after you make that fortune. They can happen any time soon and even more than once.
Lets say the max consecutive repeats is 5.
We bet against it repeating the 5th.
The question is not what that max consecutive repeats may occur in the future. The max may be 10 for that matter, it does not materially affect our bet against the 5th.
The question is how many times does 4consecutive repeats turn into 5consecutive repeats.
This means the question is about whether variance has a limit in the real casino play. If that max limit can be measured.
And the most important question of all whether there is a sharp fall off point in the frequency distribution that can be exploited.
I stated this point 4 yrs ago in VLS forum. :)
Quote from: cht on Apr 17, 11:25 AM 2018Lets say the max consecutive repeats is 5.
We bet against it repeating the 5th.
The question is not what that max consecutive repeats may occur in the future. The max may be 10 for that matter, it does not affect our bet against the 5th.
The question is how many times does 4consecutive repeats turn into 5consecutive repeats.
After 4 repeats, the probability of seeing a 5th is 1/37.
After seeing 10 repeats, the probability of seeing an 11th is 1/37.
What the non believers should be asking themselves is this:
For a single number bet...If the number of pockets on the wheel (degrees of freedom) doesn't determine the probability of winning, then what does? :o
To 'them' is not something to think about, but to 'feel', I think. They feel lucky betting against that 'rare' event. Logic has nothing to do with it, it's just superstition, common with gamblers. It's no wonder the call to reason gets so badly received at times. 'They' may not reckon, but feel it brings 'bad luck'.
Quote from: psimoes on Apr 17, 11:11 AM 2018
The thing is the rare events that can destroy your bank are not scheduled to happen only after you make that fortune. They can happen any time soon and even more than once.
True, but i for one would take that chance and Have fun. I only play with money that isn't money anymore i need to buy bread with. So the Hell with it and Have fun while it lasts. :lol:
4consecutive repeats is just an example.
Lets say we conduct actual test where we record data from the casino for 30days 24/7 and we found the result is as follows -
4repeats - 150times
5repeats - 3times
Can this actual stats count be exploited in this example ?
Yup the next month may not show the same distribution.
What if this test is extended for a period of 1yr and this frequency distribution remains the same ?
A hypothetical case to ponder.
Quote from: cht on Apr 17, 11:14 AM 2018Why have we not seen 10 or 20 consecutive repeats since random has no limits, right ? :question:
There is no theoretical limit and there only seems to be a practical limit because "rare" events depends on sample size. Nobody has ever seen 10 consecutive repeats not because it's impossible but only because it takes more spins than have ever been spun by all wheels since the game was invented.
Quote from: cht on Apr 17, 11:41 AM 2018
4consecutive repeats is just an example.
Lets say we conduct actual test where we record data from the casino for 30days 24/7 and we found the result is as follows -
4repeats - 150times
5repeats - 3times
Can this actual stats count be exploited in this example ?
Yup the next month may not show the same distribution.
What if this test is extended for a period of 1yr and this frequency distribution remains the same ?
A hypothetical case to ponder.
The longer the test is run, the closer it will get to matching what basic probability predicts. Regardless of the of the number of repeats, a number still has a probability of winning of 1/37.
Quote from: jekhb76 on Apr 17, 11:41 AM 2018
True, but i for one would take that chance and Have fun. I only play with money that isn't money anymore i need to buy bread with. So the Hell with it and Have fun while it lasts. :lol:
oh but of course. Nothing wrong with taking chances and having fun with it. Just to remind that you cant build a system based on that and expect it to win now and again.
Quote from: CoderJoe on Apr 17, 11:41 AM 2018
There is no theoretical limit and there only seems to be a practical limit because "rare" events depends on sample size. Nobody has ever seen 10 consecutive repeats not because it's impossible but only because it takes more spins than have ever been spun by all wheels since the game was invented.
So this argument that this theoretical max may not play out in real casino play is a reasonable assumption ?
Even then the question is how many times it exceed historical max 5, not the max of max in whatever future time if it ever happens.
Quote from: CoderJoe on Apr 17, 11:41 AM 2018
There is no theoretical limit and there only seems to be a practical limit because "rare" events depends on sample size. Nobody has ever seen 10 consecutive repeats not because it's impossible but only because it takes more spins than have ever been spun by all wheels since the game was invented.
Now for the record, once a number has hit six or seven times in a row...I hope that everyone here jumps on it, because it could be a biG red flag that the wheel is defective and biased.
"Could".
First of All, i would like to say that i agree with All of you. It doesn't matter what we do in roulette, there is Always a chance that something happens that we weren't kept in mind while playing the game.
It's All about here and now, and Have fun while we can. Sure 20 reds in a row can happen, sure 74 spins Without a 3 peater can happen,37 unique numbers in 37 spins, sure. But it is All about luck in the End. We can extend that luck a little bit further, but at the End Will Will Always lose, if we play Long enough.
Roulette is about luck and it will always be. Kust like inreal Life, i could be dead tomorrow or in 40 years. It is luck that i Will Wake up tomorrow. But i try to make the best of it everyday. Don't know when that day Will come. Same for roulette. Have fun with the money you win, because there Comes a day when you don't Have any anymore.
QuoteSo this argument that this theoretical max may not play out in real casino play is a reasonable assumption ?
Even then the question is how many times it exceed historical max 5, not the max of max in whatever future time if it ever happens.
CHT,
To correctly test it, just stand around in the casino waiting for five in a row, and then watch to see how often it becomes 6 in a row. Do this at least 3,700 times and you'll find that it becomes 6 in a row about every 37 attempts.
Quote from: The General on Apr 17, 11:46 AM 2018
The longer the test is run, the closer it will get to matching what basic probability predicts. Regardless of the of the number of repeats, a number still has a probability of winning of 1/37.
We all know that in theory.
Lets assume someone conducted the test has the data set as proof.
What is your empirical evidence other than cite simple math count ?
The guy who armed with this empirical evidence will be happily making money.
Who knows it could be a local yet unexplained phenomena ? :question:
That's my point and only point. Nothing more to add.
And this is only a hypothetical case.
Quote from: cht on Apr 17, 11:53 AM 2018
We all know that in theory.
Lets assume someone conducted the test has the data set as proof.
What is your empirical evidence other than cite simple math count ?
The guy who has this empirical evidence will be happily making money.
Who knows it could be a local yet unexplained phenomena ? :question:
It's math and logic plain and simple.
Perhaps this experiment (below) for the ECs limits could help.
It just requires a pen and paper. (Don't use a calculator because it will create a rounding error)
Take the number two...as in two chances.
Next divide 2 by 2.
Continue dividing over and over until you reach zero.
Next, count the number of times that you have to divide by two before you reached zero.
The number of times that you had to divide in order to reach zero represents the absolute limit for the ECs.
The same experiment can be altered a bit, but utilized to find max streaks on single numbers as well.
It goes to infinity. Like cutting an apple in two halves.
Quote from: The General on Apr 17, 11:29 AM 2018
After 4 repeats, the probability of seeing a 5th is 1/37.
After seeing 10 repeats, the probability of seeing an 11th is 1/37.
This is really getting old and if there is anyone out there that don`t understand it...
Yet the argument continues in circles even though I don`t think anyone is arguing what was stated above?
So let`s once again use the 37 unique`s in 37 spins as an example: Most have not seen this happen in their lifetime but do understand that it can happen but choose to bet against it happening without there being any mathematical, scientific or moral explanation for their decision, it`s just the way they choose to play and nobody will convince them otherwise.
So if anyone is having success playing this way why not just let them be?
Quote from: ZERO on Apr 17, 12:03 PM 2018
This is really getting old and if there is anyone out there that don`t understand it...
Yet the argument continues in circles even though I don`t think anyone is arguing what was stated above?
So let`s once again use the 37 unique`s in 37 spins as an example: Most have not seen this happen in their lifetime but do understand that it can happen but choose to bet against it happening without there being any mathematical, scientific or moral explanation for their decision, it`s just the way they choose to play and nobody will convince them otherwise.
So if anyone is having success playing this way why not just let them be?
Here's what is kind of interesting though. You can look back through history and see it playing out (repeating) on this forum. Some members are counting how long it took to get 14, 15, or 37 unique numbers in various sized samples. They're then crudely attempting to compare various samples to see which ones were the best for playing repeaters and which ones are best for playing numbers that haven't hit.
All the while they're creating their own crude versions of "goodness of fit testing." If you give them another hundred years they might invent the chi square test and begin utilizing it instead. By studying binomial distribution over hundreds of years a man named Pearson invented Peason's chi square test. ( Rather than reinventing the test many people would benefit from building on the knowledge already out there.)
Pearson's chi-squared test (χ2) is a statistical test applied to sets of categorical data to evaluate how likely it is that any observed difference between the sets arose by chance. It is suitable for unpaired data from large samples. ... Its properties were first investigated by Karl Pearson in 1900. link:s://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearson%27s_chi-squared_test
Zero, good post. I guess all of this is to warn that 'anyone may have success', but not everyone will.
To clarify, I don't play repeaters.
I haven't found repeaters to give the best edge.
If you do play repeaters it's best to extensively test your system with the data from the actual wheel you play.
The use of cellphones that do not measure the variables of the wheel and ball may likely be universally allowed in the future. Who knows ?
Quote from: cht on Apr 17, 12:18 PM 2018
To clarify, I don't play repeaters.
I haven't found repeaters to give the best edge.
If you do play repeaters it's best to extensively test your system with the data from the actual wheel you play.
Here's something that would likely benefit the hot number players.
1. Collect data fron a few or several wheels
2. Run chi square tests on each wheel to see which wheel has the highest score. (There are several spreadsheets out there that will automatically calc it for you.)
3. Play the hot numbers and or repeater systems on only the highest scoring wheel.
Quote from: The General on Apr 17, 12:35 PM 2018
Here's something that would likely benefit the hot number players.
1. Collect data fron a few or several wheels
2. Run chi square tests on each wheel to see which wheel has the highest score. (There are several spreadsheets out there that will automatically calc it for you.)
3. Play the hot numbers and or repeater systems on only the highest scoring wheel.
Thank you General!
What would be a bare minimum of spins to colect per wheel? Just for starters. Thanks in advance.
How many do you want to collect?
Oh its not for me, I cant play. No one thanked your advice and so I thought I'd ask in the name of all ex system players /wannabe advantage players out there. To keep the conversation going. Intriguing stuff.
Cheers
Quote from: Steve on Apr 17, 07:42 AM 2018Don't run away turbo. I just answered unrelated questions, no big deal.
Who's "running away" ?
I said I'm done posting. It's a waste of time.
That's not "running away" - that's your lame attempt to make me look wrong
when I'm not. Maybe read what I wrote again, or not - I don't care.
My example was using two players - one bet from the start and the other
waited for the "rare event" and then began betting.
I also said it was a temporary effect because given enough time and spins,
the "rare event" loses it's status and both players will lose in the long run
without a change happening. Given enough time - YES lightning can hit in the
same place twice. But you can bet and win that when it hits, it won't hit that spot
again and win for a very very long time. I know, it's nonsense.
Of course on the other forum Bago tries to point out that long term both players lose.
I never said long term - I said during the session both players are playing...
Player 2 has the clear advantage no matter how many times you test it -
and it's only because he/she waited for a rare event before betting -
and then he/she benefits because a "rare event" won't repeat itself in the
amount of time they are both playing.
If you believe that the last 3 number to appear - will repeat again as the last 3 numbers
to appear within the next 100 tries for example, then there's no point in explaining
Random has limits, either understand how this works or not.
It's useless to keep posting - both here and there.
If it's here then I'm jumped when posting results and told it's not accurate
when it indeed is. And there I have Bago up my ass 24/7 taking what I say
and making it into a losing argument by changing what I said into what suits
his idiotic side. So I'm done posting.
My live play will show my results - then it's just "not enough spins" and fine,
like I said I could care less.
I'll commit serious time to a book that will actually help people win without
the clutter of naysayers throwing in completely unrelated arguments while they
never even read what I wrote.
Every topic gets derailed to computers or bias wheels, but I'm being misleading.
So enjoy. If anyone duplicates my #1 climb at that "fixed" parx online for weeks
upon weeks (months actually) then I'm glad, but no one will. If anyone makes a chart
at Simulator that goes for months without a single loss to #2 (soon to be #1) then
I'm glad as well. But don't expect any credit other than rigged and fixed comments.
It's so easy to do yet the naysayers can't do it. Then the one person who could
show them is just hit with bats every time I post lol.. Nice. So you either don't want
to win, or you don't want others to win for some reason.
My casino results in PA and AC are "not enough spins".
I get it. Computers and Bias Wheels are the only way to go. Sure, that's
all you could post and not have your intelligence insulted on these forums
now - the forums are certainly "rigged" for those who profit from it.
General - did you re-send that PM to the right person instead of me ?
I get it now, it's all a joke and whatever I post will be met with attempts
to get me to run in circles and entertain you two. I'm wasting my time.
I get it.
Or I get the troll at the other forum - who takes anything I say and turns it
around making me sound like I'm wrong. Fair enough.
You guys decided to push away one person who could help everyone
and it's only because of other motives, certainly not to help members of
the forums.
But hey - it's over. My time I dedicate to posting will be replaced with putting
as much information as I can into a legitimate way to help everyone..
and when it comes out - you can post and complain about how it makes no
sense... you still won't bring yourself to admit when someone else is right.
It will help plenty of people though, I'll be satisfied with that.
I'm not happy about not posting anymore - but this circus where I'm
supposed to be the entertainment is over.
Cheers.
Well I don't think your a circus .your a good guy Ido t no you personally
But I think everyone here is good were all trying to make a buck .
QuoteI'll commit serious time to a book that will actually help people win without
the clutter of naysayers throwing in completely unrelated arguments while they
never even read what I wrote.
Good luck on your book Turbo! :)
Since Turbo isn't willing to debate Steve or me on the issue any further, I'm going to switch sides and argue for the other side in place of Turbo.
This should be fun.
Quote from: TurboGenius on Apr 17, 05:42 PM 2018
Who's "running away" ?
I said I'm done posting. It's a waste of time.
That's not "running away" - that's your lame attempt to make me look wrong
when I'm not. Maybe read what I wrote again, or not - I don't care.
My example was using two players - one bet from the start and the other
waited for the "rare event" and then began betting.
I also said it was a temporary effect because given enough time and spins,
the "rare event" loses it's status and both players will lose in the long run
without a change happening. Given enough time - YES lightning can hit in the
same place twice. But you can bet and win that when it hits, it won't hit that spot
again and win for a very very long time. I know, it's nonsense.
Of course on the other forum Bago tries to point out that long term both players lose.
I never said long term - I said during the session both players are playing...
Player 2 has the clear advantage no matter how many times you test it -
and it's only because he/she waited for a rare event before betting -
and then he/she benefits because a "rare event" won't repeat itself in the
amount of time they are both playing.
If you believe that the last 3 number to appear - will repeat again as the last 3 numbers
to appear within the next 100 tries for example, then there's no point in explaining
Random has limits, either understand how this works or not.
It's useless to keep posting - both here and there.
If it's here then I'm jumped when posting results and told it's not accurate
when it indeed is. And there I have Bago up my ass 24/7 taking what I say
and making it into a losing argument by changing what I said into what suits
his idiotic side. So I'm done posting.
My live play will show my results - then it's just "not enough spins" and fine,
like I said I could care less.
I'll commit serious time to a book that will actually help people win without
the clutter of naysayers throwing in completely unrelated arguments while they
never even read what I wrote.
Every topic gets derailed to computers or bias wheels, but I'm being misleading.
So enjoy. If anyone duplicates my #1 climb at that "fixed" parx online for weeks
upon weeks (months actually) then I'm glad, but no one will. If anyone makes a chart
at Simulator that goes for months without a single loss to #2 (soon to be #1) then
I'm glad as well. But don't expect any credit other than rigged and fixed comments.
It's so easy to do yet the naysayers can't do it. Then the one person who could
show them is just hit with bats every time I post lol.. Nice. So you either don't want
to win, or you don't want others to win for some reason.
My casino results in PA and AC are "not enough spins".
I get it. Computers and Bias Wheels are the only way to go. Sure, that's
all you could post and not have your intelligence insulted on these forums
now - the forums are certainly "rigged" for those who profit from it.
General - did you re-send that PM to the right person instead of me ?
I get it now, it's all a joke and whatever I post will be met with attempts
to get me to run in circles and entertain you two. I'm wasting my time.
I get it.
Or I get the troll at the other forum - who takes anything I say and turns it
around making me sound like I'm wrong. Fair enough.
You guys decided to push away one person who could help everyone
and it's only because of other motives, certainly not to help members of
the forums.
But hey - it's over. My time I dedicate to posting will be replaced with putting
as much information as I can into a legitimate way to help everyone..
and when it comes out - you can post and complain about how it makes no
sense... you still won't bring yourself to admit when someone else is right.
It will help plenty of people though, I'll be satisfied with that.
I'm not happy about not posting anymore - but this circus where I'm
supposed to be the entertainment is over.
Cheers.
All that steve and general has offered is to cite the standard template of the random game that the spins are equally likely and independent. Ofc we all know the math.
As I have posted earlier, the relevance of Bayes comment about random in the real casino game.
Your horse analogy was excellent that got me thinking about variable start and finish lines, and where those runners are during the race. I found front runners could be winners of multiple races within the race that sets up the kurtosis spike that can be exploited.
Your "wait" for "rare events" example and the worse 3numbers street. That line of thought deserve test. I am not surprise what the test might reveal.
I was hoping that someone might address directly the points you made instead of cite broad brush common math that the debate might move the knowledge needle. Too bad didn't happen which is not a surprise since there's nothing offered beyond what's commonly known. It's still open for anyone to put forth their case.
Thank you for your excellent contributions TG. Be looking out for your book. The very best wishes.
Dear General,
please stop tormenting people on forums
A plethora of threads on multiple forums aimed at turbo (and others)
it is childish and pointless
these people are not forcing their ideas on others
you are hell bent on being a shithead
enough already, seriously
noone cares anymore, go away
steve allows it here because it helps his cause
you like to say "slots is a better option"
well for you, GF is a better option, or was the audience not BIG enough you attention whore
(link:s://media.giphy.com/media/peeYKcwKoL172/giphy.gif)
The General is great!
I like him...lol
QuoteI was hoping that someone might address directly the points you made instead of cite broad brush common math that the debate might move the knowledge needle. Too bad didn't happen which is not a surprise since there's nothing offered beyond what's commonly known. It's still open for anyone to put forth their case.
The problem is that nobody can dispute the math. Did it occur to you that perhaps all of the history, and math books aren't wrong, and that's why they're commonly cited in the first place? I'm just saying, there is some logic as to why it's common in the first place.
Quote from: Andre Chass on Apr 17, 09:22 PM 2018
The General is great!
I like him...lol
he is a forum troll that really has not contributed much over the years
picture a grown man in his elderly mothers basement who claims to win but doesnt
Quote from: The General on Apr 17, 09:25 PM 2018
The problem is that nobody can dispute the math. Did it occur to you that perhaps all of the history, and math books aren't wrong, and that's why they're commonly cited in the first place? I'm just saying, there is some logic as to why it's common in the first place.
Math is not logic. It is fact.
In case you did not follow, no one is disputing math.
Ghost,
I get it, you like me. However regarding the contributions...look a bit closer and you'll find that they're indeed there, and if you compare yours verses mine, well...I'm just a sayin...
Best of luck.
Quote from: The General on Apr 17, 09:29 PM 2018
Ghost,
I get it, you like me. However regarding the contributions...look a bit closer and you'll find that they're indeed there.
Best of luck.
ill take silly systems any day over your repetitive condescending shit attitude day in and day out.
you don't think i see EXACTLY what you are doing?
I did not know you could be such a brown noser
GF just was not enough, haha
Quote from: TurboGenius on Apr 17, 05:42 PM 2018Who's "running away" ?
I said I'm done posting. It's a waste of time.
And playing on rigged Parx was not a waste of time?
Here we are getting to the meat of discussion. You have given specific examples to test, although I find them unclear, and now you don't want to continue discussion.
Quote from: TurboGenius on Apr 17, 05:42 PM 2018I also said it was a temporary effect because given enough time and spins, the "rare event" loses it's status and both players will lose in the long run without a change happening.
So the approach only temporarily works? The "rare event loses status"? This doesn't even make sense. If I'm reading this right, you're basically saying your example was pointless because it works for a bit then doesn't. If that was the case, then it never worked at all.
Quote from: TurboGenius on Apr 17, 05:42 PM 2018Of course on the other forum Bago tries to point out that long term both players lose.
Tony is just a childish troll trying to make himself feel superior and isn't interested in helping anyone.
You, me and Caleb know each other fairly well. For myself personally, my interest is just the truth. But still so far I haven't seen anything to merit your claims. Again you don't have to provide proof of anything. But you started publishing Parx results and claiming to have the HG. Anyone who does that is going to be put under the microscope. It's not personal.
Quote from: TurboGenius on Apr 17, 05:42 PM 2018Player 2 has the clear advantage no matter how many times you test it - and it's only because he/she waited for a rare event before betting - and then he/she benefits because a "rare event" won't repeat itself in the amount of time they are both playing.
This contradicts your earlier statement. By your logic, waiting for BBBBBBB then betting R gives an advantage. But it doesn't.
Quote from: TurboGenius on Apr 17, 05:42 PM 2018Random has limits, either understand how this works or not.
There are no limits. There is expectation, but not limits. Every spin combination will occur given enough spins. Simulations clearly show this. The math clearly shows this.
Quote from: TurboGenius on Apr 17, 05:42 PM 2018like I said I could care less.
Sorry but this is bugging me. The phrase is "couldn't care less". See link:s://:.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=I%20could%20care%20less
Quote from: TurboGenius on Apr 17, 05:42 PM 2018I'll commit serious time to a book that will actually help people win without the clutter of naysayers throwing in completely unrelated arguments while they never even read what I wrote.
I'd like to have a read when done, but please give very clear examples so proper testing can be done.
Quote from: TurboGenius on Apr 17, 05:42 PM 2018Every topic gets derailed to computers or bias wheels, but I'm being misleading.
That's not my fault, I was just answering questions.
Quote from: TurboGenius on Apr 17, 05:42 PM 2018If anyone duplicates my #1 climb at that "fixed" parx online for weeks upon weeks (months actually) then I'm glad, but no one will. If anyone makes a chart at Simulator that goes for months without a single loss to #2 (soon to be #1) then I'm glad as well.
It wouldn't be hard. It just takes time. Like I said if someone provides the bot I'll happily do the challenge.
Alternatively, anyone can follow my instructions and use the free software and see repeaters don't change the odds at all. So why bet on a repeater? It's the same as a repeater, cold number, random number or whatever.
Quote from: TurboGenius on Apr 17, 05:42 PM 2018It's so easy to do yet the naysayers can't do it.
I'm not a "naysayer" or "negative Nancy". I'm asking valid questions because I think you're misleading people, although mostly unintentionally.
Quote from: TurboGenius on Apr 17, 05:42 PM 2018Computers and Bias Wheels are the only way to go.
I never said that. Most people don't have the mindset for any kind of professional play. And I actively encourage members to pursue NEW approaches. I only discourage the same old repackaged approaches that are guaranteed to lose.
Quote from: TurboGenius on Apr 17, 05:42 PM 2018You guys decided to push away one person who could help everyone and it's only because of other motives, certainly not to help members of the forums.
Nobody should just accept you have the HG. Rightfully your claims should be scrutinized. You should have expected that when you promoted Parx rankings and claimed you never lose.
I expect to be scrutinized for my claims too. I welcome it. It's very easy for me to prove my claims. For example, aim your webcam at a wheel and my computers can predict the winning number, then elaborate lies about me count for nothing.
I have "other motives"? No. What motives do other gaming professionals have for explaining your contradictions and mistakes?
I'm long at the point where I dont give a fuck if someone doesn't believe my computers are what I say. If people aren't smart enough to find out for themselves without risking anything, they aren't smart enough for any form of advantage play. My interests in refuting bullshit is mostly a matter of clarifying personal integrity, not for sales or business. My forums are for both advertising and a personal interest in roulette. But I do not censor anything within the rules, including HG talk. It's as if you are using my alleged "other motives" as an excuse to avoid scrutiny. Anyone who claims to have the HG will draw attention.
And your method is not a threat to me in any way. If I found something better than what I already have, I would be using it instead. Specifically I would seek to both use it myself and license it simultaneously in a secure way, as I do with my computers. Why? Because there are far more casinos that my teams can play in. So licensing maximizes revenue. Although it may not be possible to license securely if your system is so easily reverse engineered. Maybe it's time I do another public demo so make a few things clear. I have no doubt nothing comes close to what I have. But I am open to the possibility. And if you have something better, I have the integrity to congratulate you and give credit where is due. But so far you have only shown fundamental misunderstandings and made contradictions. It is nothing at all personal. Really I think you're a nice guy, but find you incorrect.
IF you or anyone had the HG, and could prove it, I would seek to purchase it from you. Or lease it from you, or look at some form of profit split. Then I would use my network of players to profit from it. But we're a long way from that considering all the proof suggests your claims aren't accurate.
Quote from: TurboGenius on Apr 17, 05:42 PM 2018My time I dedicate to posting will be replaced with putting as much information as I can into a legitimate way to help everyone..
It wont stop the scrutiny. Avoiding the head-on questions will make it worse.
Quote from: TurboGenius on Apr 17, 05:42 PM 2018you still won't bring yourself to admit when someone else is right.
You don't know me well. I pride myself on saying I'm wrong, when I'm wrong. Because I am comfortable with myself. And if ever I was not comfortable, then that is my problem to deal with. I've had many people direct their personal problems at me despite doing nothing wrong, and I don't ever want to me such a weak person to do the same thing to others. We all have our beliefs about reality. And often we find we are wrong. So while I of course have my beliefs, I am open to the possibility I may be completely wrong.
One example is the flat earth bullshit. When Falkor brought it up, I expected it to be a joke with no evidence at all. But I hate when people are ignorant and unwilling to listen to reason. So I took it seriously and properly investigated. And in the end, I found not a single piece of evidence to support the theory. I had an open mind with it. And I have an open mind with your claims. I have spent more time than I should have on it. And still so far, I have not seen one piece of correct and credible information to support your claims. In fact, everything points the other way. So I remain skeptical, but open-minded. Please don't accuse me of being ignorant or unwilling to admit being wrong. Again the fact is I'm very open to the possibility of being wrong, very open-minded, and will proudly admit when I'm wrong.
RG we know your opinion of Caleb. You dont have to constantly repeat it. We are trying to achieve something here, and constant Caleb bashing isnt helping.
Again he knows the line and so far isnt crossing it.
The counter-arguments are incongruous and disjointed like we see in the past. Moving on.
You're not seeing the whole picture.
This Will Always be An endless discussion for as Long as TG doesn't openly explains his method.
Up till now we doesn't know what he is doin' so everyone makes his own conclusion arou d that.
How can we test things, Without knowing how to play it in the First place. There is No Point in testing his clues, because a. You Will never know if you are testing under the Right condition and the Right rules.
And B. How can ever ever say that it won't or does work in the First place, when we don't Have the full picture to Judge upon.
You are not bulding a house before knowing how much ground you Have to build upon! I Always say, that if you don't Have the intention to reveil something, why bother to post clues? Because in the End everybody is goin' his own way, Without knowing where they must go.
Do i need the HG? No, i'm doin' Just Fine Without it.
Do i want the HG? Sure, i would be lying if i told you No.
It would be Nice to play, Without to have to worry about stoploss All the Time. Because with the HG in TG statement, i Will Always win, so i never Have to worry i would lose in the First place. But besides that, i'm Happy with the things i do on my own .
But i Have to admit, i'm curious just like the rest of you, about what and how he does it. If he does it.
Quote from: RouletteGhost on Apr 17, 09:27 PM 2018
he is a forum troll that really has not contributed much over the years
picture a grown man in his elderly mothers basement who claims to win but doesnt
Now your wrong RG.... thats mr j :girl_to:
Jesus saves.
QuoteHow can we test things, Without knowing how to play it in the First place. There is No Point in testing his clues, because a. You Will never know if you are testing under the Right condition and the Right rules.
We know exactly what it is that he's doing. Even if we didn't, we can still prove whether or not the concept would work without the details by using basic probability/math and logic. Think of it like this, we know that the earth is round, without having to travel to space. ;)
He specifically said that it was for the random game and that he needed randomness for it to work.
The system stripped down is basically:
1. Betting numbers that hit more than once in a spin horizon X.
2. Running an up as you lose progression.
In my opinion the system would have had a better chance of performing on live wheels with a few changes.
Quote from: The General on Apr 18, 01:54 PM 2018
We know exactly what it is that he's doing. Even if we didn't, we can still prove whether or not the concept would work without the details by using basic probability/math and logic. Think of it like this, we know that the earth is round, without having to travel to space. ;)
He specifically said that it was for the random game and that he needed randomness for it to work.
The system stripped down is basically:
1. Betting numbers that hit more than once in a spin horizon X.
2. Running an up as you lose progression.
In my opinion the system would have had a better chance of performing on live wheels with a few changes.
Well i don't believe it anymore unless he shows prove. How can his method never lose? If you think about it , it's Just don't making sense. Sure we All know that All numbers Will return at some Point. That is the only certanly thatbwr Have. A 1 Will become a 2 and a 2 Will become a 3 etc etc. But unless he has An invinate bankroll and he is playing at a Table or online where the Table limits are also invinate, there is No way, he could win All the Time and knowing he will for as Long as he is playing. That's Just absurt. I did study astrofysica but this i can't explaining, unless he has the above.
Quote from: psimoes on Apr 18, 11:35 AM 2018
Jesus saves.
But Moses heads it in on the rebound
(link:://:.pichost.org/images/2018/04/18/temp_219222.png) (link:://:.pichost.org/image/swexU)
Moses was offside. Goalkick.
link:s://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSze9wAtmbYX5Cpb-DDSZYxQTEs7Oo5MO12aK0D3ChUXiNYzkFqGg
##$& What a tangled mess!