• Welcome to #1 Roulette Forum & Message Board | www.RouletteForum.cc.

## News:

Odds and payouts are different things. If either the odds or payouts don't change, then the result is the same - eventual loss.

## @ turbo

Started by Steve, Dec 29, 07:00 AM 2016

0 Members and 9 Guests are viewing this topic.

#### Steve

Turbo, I will try to answer the questions (pls make them clear) but I'm not going to post on gf mainly because the admin is a lying sack of excrement. For now maybe only he and I know that. When i next post there i will add my own custom signature. But for now I'm not interested in posting interesting information on a forum with an admin that's a dickhead.

Pls pose your questions. Pride aside, let the truth prevail. Id be happy to be wrong.
"The only way to beat roulette is by increasing the accuracy of predictions"
Roulettephysics.com â† Professional roulette tips
Roulette-computers.com â† Hidden electronics that predicts the winning number
Roulettephysics.com/roulette-strategy â† Why most systems lose

#### Steve

1. The house edge (odds vs payout) apply to each spin independently, not a group of spins. But it is still often expressed over a group of spins, like say 37 spins ( eu wheel ). The problem with looking at groups of spins is you get stuck thinking you in any way changed the odds.

2. I dont understand what you are saying in this point. But two players with a combined result is just a bunch of independent results.

What youve said is not quite accurate. Its like stating an average rainfall amount each month. Knowing it still doesnt tell you if it will rain tomorrow. And even if guessed correctly it rained tomorrow, the rain god might say "tricked ya" and change his mind so you are guaranteed to be wrong at least one guess each month. The house edge is similar.

"The only way to beat roulette is by increasing the accuracy of predictions"
Roulettephysics.com â† Professional roulette tips
Roulette-computers.com â† Hidden electronics that predicts the winning number
Roulettephysics.com/roulette-strategy â† Why most systems lose

#### tuddilue

Which questions is he answering? Maybe I'm missing something here. In that case I apologizes...

I have read Turbos comments in the past. I think he evolves from system player to a more random player. Random is a fascinating subject and it is really interesting.

He also claims that the game of roulette is beatable by math. If you run a lot of spins you will see that the averages is the same. Maybe not exactly as law of the third but it is not long far away.

For me I really like playing the repeaters and with help of learning from KTF, WTF and later GUT. I have learned a lot and I read for example Turbos posts with other knowledge. He is trying to say something but hides it in riddles and bragging about how good he is with help of graphs and bankrolls. But he still has something to tell. I think I figured out how he plays but I'm not 100% sure.

It would be really interesting to see an example how he is playing? But to see an example of that maybe is aiming for the stars

But I'm fascinated by the random and how you can use that with help of averages. Maybe that is not the correct way to go but it works for me and I should really want to learn more about the random. But where to continue I do not know. Maybe you have some tips? Or someone else...

So the problem we had before with people disrupting the posts on the forum I think have stopped. Now its more easier to read about roulette and that is we all here for. How do we beat a fascinating game like this. That is the question

- Tuddilue

#### Steve

Random means no possible change in odds. It might mean even spread of results in the long term but that DOES NOT HELP AT ALL.

Its easy to know. Just keep testing. If the system eventually tanks then you were wrong.

Turbo specifically said he is not speaking in riddles.

He is posing questions that I'm answering. Turbo, perhaps post here because I'm interested in discussing this in an open manner for everyone's benefit, and i can answer correctly. This forum is back to productive discussion.

At one stage i thought as most people here. Then i learned. Im trying to help people understand why you can only beat roulette by changing odds. Its really a simple concept but most people are stuck in wrong thought patterns.

A primary problem is thinking progression is anything but different size wagers on different spins with the same odds.

"The only way to beat roulette is by increasing the accuracy of predictions"
Roulettephysics.com â† Professional roulette tips
Roulette-computers.com â† Hidden electronics that predicts the winning number
Roulettephysics.com/roulette-strategy â† Why most systems lose

#### denzie

If I'm not mistaken. ...I think TG knows how to code. So he probably let it run for millions of spins already. So he should know the outcome of what's gonna happen in the future for his system.

Just mention it
As spins roll off our predictions get better

#### tuddilue

Quote from: Steve on Dec 30, 04:33 AM 2016
Random means no possible change in odds. It might mean even spread of results in the long term but that DOES NOT HELP AT ALL.

Its easy to know. Just keep testing. If the system eventually tanks then you were wrong.

Turbo specifically said he is not speaking in riddles.

He is posing questions that I'm answering. Turbo, perhaps post here because I'm interested in discussing this in an open manner for everyone's benefit, and i can answer correctly. This forum is back to productive discussion.

At one stage i thought as most people here. Then i learned. Im trying to help people understand why you can only beat roulette by changing odds. Its really a simple concept but most people are stuck in wrong thought patterns.

A primary problem is thinking progression is anything but different size wagers on different spins with the same odds.
Yes I agree on the random part. But I think it is more into the random than that.

Yes riddles maybe is a wrong word but what I mean is he tries to explain but how he explains becomes riddles for people who doesn't understand

I think a better way can be to explain it with help of 37 spin cycles and actual spin numbers with comments of how to think. I do not want a step by step explanation. More how to think and how to handle the random. I even doesn't know if it possible to do. But for the average player it should be graspable.

But for starters you two need to be here and start to discuss. Would be interesting but is it doable I do not know...
- Tuddilue

#### Steve

Turbo did you code in rx and test millions of spins yet?

Lets not do this multiple forum thing. Please discuss here
"The only way to beat roulette is by increasing the accuracy of predictions"
Roulettephysics.com â† Professional roulette tips
Roulette-computers.com â† Hidden electronics that predicts the winning number
Roulettephysics.com/roulette-strategy â† Why most systems lose

#### TurboGenius

Hi Steve - I haven't honestly been looking at other forums aside from the one where I'm at now...
and didn't want to get into posting the same thing in multiple places - but I'll try to comment here along with "there" because I think it's good for everyone.
I can recreate the same style thread here with you as the person to verify what I say - but doing both places at the same time might mean a delay in replying.

Quote from: Steve on Dec 29, 08:57 PM 2016Turbo, answers below:

1. The house edge (odds vs payout) apply to each spin independently, not a group of spins. But it is still often expressed over a group of spins, like say 37 spins ( eu wheel ). The problem with looking at groups of spins is you get stuck thinking you in any way changed the odds.

2. I dont understand what you are saying in this point. But two players with a combined result is just a bunch of independent results.

What youve said is not quite accurate. Its like stating an average rainfall amount each month. Knowing it still doesnt tell you if it will rain tomorrow. And even if guessed correctly it rained tomorrow, the rain god might say "tricked ya" and change his mind so you are guaranteed to be wrong at least one guess each month. The house edge is similar.

My point in that first post was to show and explain that the house edge is made up of a total of all players and all bets. The two players that I picked out to use for example (one did above expected and one did below expected) had two different results obviously,  the casino however - had the same house edge in the end because it factors all players and all results.
There was no real method or system at work here - all players (38) simply flat bet every spin on their own number. Combined, they lost at exactly the house edge.

#### Steve

Hi, the expectation of loss or amount of wins for each number on average is predictable but not to the point where the next spins odds are changed.

The house edge comes from the odds vs payout for an individual spin. So i disagree with you on this point but maybe let's keep moving anyway
"The only way to beat roulette is by increasing the accuracy of predictions"
Roulettephysics.com â† Professional roulette tips
Roulette-computers.com â† Hidden electronics that predicts the winning number
Roulettephysics.com/roulette-strategy â† Why most systems lose

#### TurboGenius

Quote from: Steve on Dec 30, 04:21 PM 2016The house edge comes from the odds vs payout for an individual spin. So i disagree with you on this point

That is true - but it also matches up exactly with the combination of all player's bets over a period of time - the house edge still remains at 5.26% (as I showed with the "summary statistics" graphic.)
So one spin - one player - the house edge is the same.
38 spins for 3 cycles of spins with 38 players betting every spin ? - the house edge is the same.
It doesn't change based on who bets where, or what player won or what player lost..
Most of the players individually don't end the 3 cycles with -5.26% result - some are above that, some are below that - the house though got exactly what it was expecting from all players combined results.
My point was that 1 spin or a group of spins - a winning player or a losing player - the house has it's edge when these are combined.
This should be a good argument for the "anti-system" people because they can point to the math and say "See ? Just because someone won 7 times - it doesn't mean anything because the other players lost and the overall result was a win for the house - and maybe the next 3 cycles of spins that winning player won't win again" or etc etc. That would be a reasonable argument at this point. That "long term" (much more than a measly 3 cycles of spins) this player will be doomed to sit at -5.26% with everyone else.

#### RouletteGhost

The forum back and forth stuff is so childish. Just post here lol
the key to winning with systems : play for a statistically irrelevant number of spins

#### Steve

Turbo, ok lets move to the next question.
"The only way to beat roulette is by increasing the accuracy of predictions"
Roulettephysics.com â† Professional roulette tips
Roulette-computers.com â† Hidden electronics that predicts the winning number
Roulettephysics.com/roulette-strategy â† Why most systems lose

#### Steve

"The only way to beat roulette is by increasing the accuracy of predictions"
Roulettephysics.com â† Professional roulette tips
Roulette-computers.com â† Hidden electronics that predicts the winning number
Roulettephysics.com/roulette-strategy â† Why most systems lose

#### TurboGenius

I can deal with it. I'm sure at some point the thread will be cleaned up.
I'll copy/paste - it will save me some typing time lol.
---------------------------------
The next post is about what happens when the players (instead of flat betting their number every spin) decide to use a system based on repeaters.
Here are the same spins - the same players - still flat betting only on their number.
The only difference is that each player begins betting on their number only once it shows.
So here are the results to compare to the last 3 cycles. We haven't even put in a progression yet - the only thing that is different is that they are playing for a repeat to happen on their number (and they won't remove their bets - they'll just start betting their number once it shows and then every spin after that until the end of the 3 cycles)
This is the data for all players combined (the house edge from the last test was exactly 5.26% as it should be)
-------------------------------------
So ALL players ended as a group EVEN. The house edge 0.00 !
This is a fact - it is not trickery or curve fitting, or reverse engineering - it is simply how random works.
We are still at the basic level here. 2,808 bets of \$1.00 each were placed - that's a pretty good amount
considering each bet from each player was only \$1.00 flat betting every spin.

I want to also now look at the two examples from above - player 4 and player 10.

Player 4 had to sacrifice 1 win and ended with 6 wins instead of 7.
Player 4 ended with a balance of +\$109.00
Player 10 NEVER lost a bet. Player 10 ended even at +- \$.00
As compared to the last set of 3 cycles - Player 4 had won \$138.00 and now has \$109.00
Player 10 had LOST \$114.00 and has now lost \$0.00
By only adding this fist basic step of each player betting their number after it appears (and from then on)
The group ended EVEN - The house edge 0.00%. 2,808 bets were placed after 114 spins and the house edge was 0.

Truth ? Of course. More to come.