Roulette I've seen a new absurd claim that the gambler's fallacy isn't.....

i know what you mean, really. But you also know what i'm trying to say.

 

I know what you are trying to say, but it also shows you dont know math...case closed...good luck with your winning system, you are going to need it!

 

I know 2 more who also know what turbo posted years ago, thank god, they not goin' to spill it out in the open.

 

Well, i maybe not good in math, but i do know how to win everytime i play, your not. Case closed

 

Mean what you wrote.

 

yes the other one still keeps it secret.

years ago turbo accedently gave away how it's done, but they were all to bussy calling names to one and another and posting funny pictures all day long, that no one noticed it bein' posted. Back in those days i made screenshots of everything turbo postes, so i could use it later on for study. And so i did, and found it.[/QUOTE]

I am relatively new to the forum and have only read the information that turbogenius has posted on this forum.
Do you know if the information you comment is still published somewhere?

yesterday you made a publication to continue directing people.

thank you very much again.

 

I have already published a winning way here, more than two and a half years ago. It was suggested that a winning method could be published and that it would have no effect on the internet or the casinos. It's real close to going over 300,000 views too. Yet there is nothing out there in the casinos. Nobody is talking about it. They come, they study, some acquire the skills, and then crickets. More than 161 have downloaded the practice software. It's a very small group from 300,000 views.

 

I looked into this. There has been a little more than 8,000 views at the link where I show how to use the practice software.

https://www.gamblingforums.com/threads/reading-randomness-practice-software-1-4g-with-graph.15233/

300,000 views at the primary teaching thread. 161 downloads of the practice software. 8,000 views of learning to use the practice software.

Nothing but crickets.

 

@Raf, I was fascinated by the idea, so I decided to do some tests. I wanted to see how the number of repeats in the first 24 spins affects the number of repeats in the last 13 spins (in terms of statistical likelihood, obviously). Here are the results:



Apparently, there is no link in the variables I tested. At least not visible to me. Would you please elaborate on this?

 

Nah i know, i don't have a clue what i'm talking about

this is 2 month worth of sessions.
That's 2 months 7 days a week winning every night and walk away as a winner.....

Oh yeah i know, not enough sessions

 

Same stats for the number of uniques, obviously:


The grayed headings are the number of uniques in the first 24 spins, and the below cells indicate the number of uniques in the last 13 spins.

 

Fair play to you gizmo. You have a method and you put it out there for people to try out. That’s precisely what forums like this should be about.

 

Hi Shank,

these analyzes cannot highlight anything ..... the link between the groups of numbers is missing.
Furthermore, they are also useless simulations, because they do not add anything to what already results from the binomial distribution of the sortie of 37 numbers, in the sense that in practice it is possible to detect +/- positive deviations with respect to probabilistic expectations. Here are two tables of the aforementioned binomial where the link I am referring to is missing: one for the first 36 sortie and the other up to the 100 sortie.

Understanding the connection between the different groups is the solution.

Regards, Raf

 

Ok i will try the same in "streets".
Perhaps i obtain different results. Perhaps 12 possible locations is better than 37.

Thanks!

 

Or rather than solely awaiting those late commencing after the 37th spin as per the other https://www.gamblingforums.com/threads/gamblers-fallacy-absurd-proof.22620/ thread.. combine'em into a more balanced strategy.

Just as an insight ..
institutional investors use such a tactic a lot .. balancing .. buying eg. stocks & if/when the stock performance would offset the carefully constructed portfolio overall balance balancing the loss with puts.
Similarly, hedge funds that¬decide to short multiple positions, if one of the stocks suddenly goes climbing up steadily & persistently with great support.. they have no other choice than to heavily buy calls with intent to minimize tge losses, even coming out positive per that entity overall .. as buying the calls further strenghtens the rasining of the stock.

Remember, you can always play opting for ≠stop-loss & minimum betting/drawdowns type of strategy, that satisfies still acceptable overall avg profit/per spin ratio & to it suiting bankroll requirement. Once these overall parameters are figured out -- stability, thereof the base unit can always be increased over time.

& restart on each profit, eventually & inevitably meet a longer game anyway.


I know that Turbo mentioned somewhere, ≠quote -- that he would place several strategies combined with the requirement of only one of them having to outperform .. but always based on math!

 

Don't just follow the trend; its good to think in terms of first principles which is, rather than reasoning by analogy you boil the things down to the most fundamental truths you can imagine & reason up from there. That's a great way to determine if you're doing something new, different than everybody else is doing.

Every question is wrong to some degree.
The goal is to be less wrong over time.
Best questions give you best answers.



There's a certain amount of time (spins+positions density ≈synonymous) & within that time you want the best net outcome; for all the set of actions that you can do (bet sequence structure=strategy, potentially a few of those combined), there'll be some which will fail some that will succeed (amongst the sequences, & within) & you want the net useful output of the set of actions to be the highest (avg profit/spin ratio), & maximized vs the bankroll requirement, which should be as minimal as possible defined with base unit increase in mind (scalability) over time. Failure is actually irrelevant unless it would be catastrophic.

In fact, the failure reveals (where) the statistical advantage (is). Recovery should be constituted on the same principles as the attack, although the recovery cannot work at that point for that exact reason. What is there now, that at the beginning (of the session) wasn't; where the roulette/casino has all of the advantage, although over time that changes, over time you'll win consistently (≠stop loss required); by keeping the cost/time & progression thus exposition also at minimum.

Every number 'tends' to over time hit in 1/37. The more you can group numbers the better. There of, once you receive/realize a hit, & a statistically advantageous number has a higher perpensity of entering the congested variance interval wouldn't it be better to receive a greater spin cumulative payout on it .. regarded as fewer SU positions played or fewer bigger positions (Q,ST,DS) by perhaps pausing one of the strategies combined (eg. repeats, late numbers) till reaching the ≈threshold of exposition before the hit .. interchangeably playing fewer & more numbers per spin, or block of spins to be precise .. thus capitalizing on those total amount of appearances of a number per number averaging to 1/37?


Simplify your product as much as possible ..

 

Would you please elaborate on this? What is this table about? What is the "link" about? Distances? Cycles? Repeats? Distribution of uniques?

 

12?

Ken