The Ineptness of Turbo and others

[Ka2]

This is a warning to all. Stop wasting time looking for a statistical EDGE! There is NONE!

For the last few month I tested so many ideas to see if there would be statistical edge somewhere. For example Turbo's horse race looked promising but after programming everything in excel and testing 1000's of spins the return is always 1:37.

For example I tested the 5 top finishers in a 5 (37) cycle race. After 1000's of spins the hit rate would return to 1:37. Yes sometimes you would have top performers going to 12 or above hits, and yes you would be on them. BUT because you dont KNOW which of the 11's are going to 12 you would have to bet all 11's.

This holds true for all 2's going to 3 and all 3's going to 4 etc etc etc. So sometimes the first 2 getting to 3 and betting all 2's coming out will go over 37 and sometimes they will go under 37. And after 1000's of spins they WILL return to 1:37

Turbo will probably answer that he is not betting all 2's going to 3. But if you bet not all then you randomly have to select a few 2's and this will give you not a better statistical edge either (I tested this)

Turbo spoke about all sort of nonsense for example here's a funny one:

Turbo and I will sit at the roulette table and I say to Turbo, I will bet that if I choose 12 random numbers after the first cycle is over a few of them will not show! Turbos says that can not happen, thats voodoo you will have to wait 1 cycle and pick the 12 numbers that not have shown.

After the first cycle is over a few of the random numbers I have choosen did not show. Turbo's face is green how can this be??? I turn to him and say the 5 numbers that did show up from the numbers I choose, I will pick 5 random numbers and I will bet a few of them will not show in Cycle 2.

And hot dang after cycle 2 is over 2 of my randomly choosen numbers did not show!!! Turbo has passed out on the floor next to me.

Moral of the story is. If you have an idea test it for 1000's of spins and not only that do another test with random patterns or numbers or areas it will NOT GIVE YOU BETTER RESULTS!

Stop wasting time and being a fool, play for fun but dont think you can get a statistical edge!

[Joe]

At last, a sensible post.

[Bigbroben]

You used excel's random function?

[Ka2]

Yes and I used data from random.org the results are the same...

[Let Me Win]

You seem to be saying that because YOU were unable to find a statistical edge in your tests that non exist.

[Let Me Win]

You could consider the EVEN chances...

The theory is that number of 2 in a row or more = number of SINGLES
But in the category "more than 2 in a row" there are also very very long streaks (100 in a row,…200 in a row….300 in a row….,that we 'll never see in our life)

Because of that SINGLES hit a bit more than x in a row because they must take an advantage for compensating very very long streaks that theoretically exist but no player will never see.

Clear?

Test with RX extreme confirms this theory but not enough to offset - 1,35% house advantage that becomes around -1%

[Ka2]

You seem to be saying that because YOU were unable to find a statistical edge in your tests that non exist.

I know for a fact there is no edge statistically. I have a gift of thinking way outside the box and tested them all rigorously in the end they all fall back to 1:37. Dont get me wrong some ideas can show positive for a long while, but play them long enough and you will see them return to the starting point and below.

If anybody claims they have, they should test the same idea at random for 1000's of spins and the data will show it makes no difference.

The big problem however is most people here dont know how to program their ideas. And they test for a couple of hundreds spins and they think they have something.

[Ka2]

You could consider the EVEN chances...

The theory is that number of 2 in a row or more = number of SINGLES
But in the category "more than 2 in a row" there are also very very long streaks (100 in a row,…200 in a row….300 in a row….,that we 'll never see in our life)

Because of that SINGLES hit a bit more than x in a row because they must take an advantage for compensating very very long streaks that theoretically exist but no player will never see.

Clear?

Test with RX extreme confirms this theory but not enough to offset - 1,35% house advantage that becomes around -1%

You just showed an error a lot of other people make. You are comparing apples and oranges. You cant compare the set of 1 against the set of 2 and bigger.

Test the set of 1 , 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,8 for example (forget the zero) just play 36 numbers or just a coin flip. After 1000's of spins there is no statistical edge of playing either of these sets!

[Madi]

Are u saying u tested 1000 spin and got nothing? What did u actually look for?

[Joe]

@ Ka2, but do you understand why you haven't been able to get a statistical edge? If you don't, you might be tempted to try again, and spend your whole like looking for something which doesn't exist, like the alchemists of old did.

You should understand that creating a gambling system is impossible, when all you have is random numbers.

[Madi]

This is a warning to all. Stop wasting time looking for a statistical EDGE! There is NONE!

For the last few month I tested so many ideas to see if there would be statistical edge somewhere. For example Turbo's horse race looked promising but after programming everything in excel and testing 1000's of spins the return is always 1:37.

For example I tested the 5 top finishers in a 5 (37) cycle race. After 1000's of spins the hit rate would return to 1:37. Yes sometimes you would have top performers going to 12 or above hits, and yes you would be on them. BUT because you dont KNOW which of the 11's are going to 12 you would have to bet all 11's.

U r right. After certain spin all numbers may come to equal. U r still looking for wrong thing. U need to look for inequality and exploit it. Its not always the top finisher give u profit all the time. The last boy can give u big profit when u need. There is a way to know which 5s will be 6s , not always but most of the time to make enough profit.

[Steve]

You should understand that creating a gambling system is impossible, when all you have is random numbers.

And that's why system players are stuck at 1in 37, and they think experienced players are "obsessed" with 1 in 37.

No amount of repeaters, hot numbers, cold numbers, progressions, line-crossing, patterns you think you see, "have to happen events" and all that bullshit is going to change it. 1 in 37 is what you get with random.

[luckyfella]

No amount of repeaters, hot numbers, cold numbers, progressions, line-crossing, patterns you think you see, "have to happen events" and all that bullshit is going to change it. 1 in 37 is what you get with random.

Shut down the systems forum.

Do it to back up what you just wrote.

Don't write trash excuse below.
No reply required.
Action speak louder than words.
Just do it.

[luckyfella]

You should understand that creating a gambling system is impossible, when all you have is random numbers.

But I do play because I like creating and ANALYSING systems and using them makes roulette a lot more fun. I'm not really interested in AP because that would be 'work'

Why insult your math education ?

Steve, Joe, nothing personal.
Zero intent of personal attack.
Not messing with your rc business either.

[Steve]

Shut down the systems forum.

Why? Some people want to discuss their theories, without others explaining their errors. That's what it's for.

Does people not knowing better mean we should shut down the internet? No, so don't say stupid things.

Do it to back up what you just wrote.

Your logic is asinine. Backing up what I wrote is providing proof of what i say, which I have - many times.

Action speak louder than words.
Just do it.

Actions do speak louder than words. That's why you aren't out winning real money.

Not messing with your rc business either.

Asinine. It's the "go-to" comment when nothing backs your system logic. Anyone interested in computers or AP is well past the nonsense you're still stuck at.