Roulette More Proof of Turbo's fallacy

Upon taking time to in-depth review your report ..

Exactly .. what nonsese.


I am re-instating everything written; with ***not*** typo correction, everything else stays the same .. reconfirming being right for the first time & throughout --
with a mind note to explore in-depth before writing, the only reason I've temporarily withdrawn accounting .. for the possibility of being incorrect.



MJ go bluff someone else.

Now you owe me an apology.

 

MJ .. No point wasting time on you any longer .. I've given you the benefit of doubt .. two times .. now & quite a while ago. On both occasions proven you wrong.

& in retrospect better if I wouldn't investing time on something else.


To anyone else; if you by slightest chance think there's something to Joe;
don't think again & put your money somewhere else .. anywhere at all is better already.

 

MJ, Benas,

We're just not reaching him!

 

Tsss .. which one .. the one not on the picture, standing behind .. that's just to take both of'em heads with a one-blow scythe.

..



.. a bridge too far guy .. or should I say crew



btw .. both teams of the same side

show must go on

 

Klausy, the "method" I coded was based on the logic which Turbo gave in the other thread :

I'm not saying it's exactly the way he plays. Of course I don't know that, and neither does anyone else. But what I've shown is that betting on the numbers left in play, which according to Turbo always give you the advantage because they do better than expected, doesn't work. Naturally there are many tweaks which could be made, but the basic logic is clear enough. What I'll do next is find out what the actual chances are of the numbers left in play doing better than expected, because strictly speaking, that's all that Turbo is claiming. And as for TRD saying I've been curve-fitting, that's absurd because my results were generated from an algorithm:

Code:

MODULE roulette;
IMPORT Out,Lib;
VAR
  wheel,
  hits,
  unhit,
  tobet  : SET;
  i,spin : BYTE;       
  bank1,
  total,
  wins,j : INTEGER;

BEGIN
  total:=0;
  wins:=0;
  FOR j:= 1 TO 100 DO
    wheel:={0..36};
    hits:={};
    tobet:={};
    bank1:=0;
    Out.String("Starting a new session");
    Out.Ln; Out.Ln;
    FOR i:= 1 TO 37 DO
      spin:=Lib.rand(37);
      Out.Int(spin,3);
      Out.Ln;
      INCL(hits,spin);
    END;
    unhit:=wheel-hits;
    Out.Ln;
    (* start of betting cycle *)
    WHILE Lib.card(unhit)>2 DO
      Out.Ln;
      Out.String("There are ");
      Out.Int(Lib.card(unhit),1);
      Out.String(" unhit numbers:");
      FOR i:= 0 TO 36 DO
        IF i IN unhit THEN
          Out.Int(i,3);
        END;
      END;
      Out.Ln;
      Out.String("Bet on them as they show in the next cycle...");
      Out.Ln;
      Out.Ln;
      FOR i:= 1 TO 37 DO
        spin:=Lib.rand(37);
        Out.Int(spin,3);
        IF spin IN tobet THEN
          bank1:=bank1+36-Lib.card(tobet);
        ELSE
          bank1:=bank1-Lib.card(tobet);
        END;
        Out.Int(bank1,9);
        IF spin IN unhit THEN (* add to tobet *)
          INCL(tobet,spin);
          Out.String("  *");
          EXCL(unhit,spin);
        END;
        Out.Ln;
      END;
    END;
    (* end of betting cycle *)
    Out.Ln;
    Out.String("End of Session");
    Out.Ln;
    total:=total+bank1;
    Out.String("Accumulated bank over all sessions = ");
    Out.Int(total,1);
    Out.Ln;
    IF bank1>0 THEN
      INC(wins);
    END;
  END;
  Out.Ln;
  Out.String("Number of winning sessions : ");
  Out.Int(wins,1);
END roulette. 

Did he think I was going through the 100s of sessions by hand tweaking the results to make them look bad? That's absurd. But there's no point in arguing with someone like that. People can see the results for themselves. If he wants to delude himself it's not my problem.

 

Ok

 

That's like taking (someone's previous) season F1 car .. & deciding to go with a predefined setting throughout the whole next one.

Don't mind the difference of some tracks being mainly straight with top speed, others main are turns with acceleration playing the biggest role, let's leave the wing's angles as they are, fuck it don't mind the rain either .. let's slick it. You know what, let's also put, just like everything else according to an algorithm, the same amount of gas for every race .. does the weight really matter?

After making your cake & eating it too..
..but mind one thing ! ..its not my fault .. its algorithm's;
if that ain't absurd nothing is.

That's your epitome MJ, of showing how a car can't & doesn't win, this time you even managed to surpass yourself.



If losing was the thing that mattered the most in this world .. you might as well be a god emperor;
although as things stand you might make a lot of money building can't win playing roulette' conspiracy 'theory.
Ever thought about contacting casinos' syndicate .. they might as well sponsor your endeavors.

 

As usual, you missed the point of my comment, but since you bought this up, let's take a look at it. If you're talking about visual ballistics, the analogy has some merit, but for systems it's piss-poor. That's because you can't "see" the next outcome before it happens (duh), and so any idea of control is just an illusion. And there are no "conditions" to watch out for either. All you have is past spins which don't influence future spins. I think you may have heard this before but just thought I'd remind you, as it seems to have slipped your mind.

A better analogy would be driving blindfold with earplugs. Not a good idea if you're trying to actually get somewhere, and drive long enough you'll end up in intensive care, or worse. So unless it's just for fun, better off not to get behind the wheel at all. Or you could do yourself a favour and focus on the physics (remove the blindfold and earplugs). Past numbers and progressions are a dead end.

And you're implying that algorithms don't work. I think actually Turbo would disagree. However he plays I'm sure he uses systems. That means he doesn't use intuition or make bets a whim, but uses rules. Whim is the road that Gizmo has chosen since he realized that systems don't work. But it's incoherent, because getting good at "reading random" just means figuring out what works, which can be codified as an algorithm and hence is no longer a skill requiring judgement. That's what algorithms are for -- they capture and encapsulate prior research and intelligence, so we can do things mechanically. Making discretionary bets is just an admission that you're guessing, hoping for the best, and how can that give you an edge?

But in reality, neither path gives you an edge, so take your pick and have fun. Roulette the GAME is for entertainment, after all.

 

No, the point is -- not my fault = algorithms'.
Algorithm poorly & incorrectly designed; intentionally.

& you wrote a lot of comments too .. for the algorithm to be understood.



The rest is just your usual blablabla, what are you even talking about.

 

Sorry you don't comprehend. Perhaps you should take up another pastime which is less intellectually demanding, like skydiving. Without a parachute.

 

The point still stands.

Yes .. jetpack.

 

Does that seem like a question to you?

To be consistent in losing .. requires no brain.
Much worse .. with all that knowledge accumulated in addition.

I would be for you .. but my constitution does not consist of such things.