TurboGenius Gambler's Fallacy (absurd ?) Proof.

Eehhhhhh no ! I'm from Belgium...not The Netherlands

 

Most of the times.....sounds good to me

 

Good catch by you and Gordon, I missed it.

DutchCrown has said multiple times this week that he's "been winning for 2.5 years and never lost"...

But Eddy/jekhb1976 under his original account mentioned recently that he was still trying to apply the best formula of Turbo's work, and hadn't been able to crack it.

Always a reminder to the lurkers, as I've said before, don't believe everything you read. Always test concepts for yourself in a controlled way, make sure to eliminate confirmation bias and curve fitting always (be on guard for it constantly as it can creep in without you realizing it) and use actual spins from actual casinos that you know are regulated properly.

It's the only way.

 

Nobody is reading about the masses who are losing their pants and shirts .

 

"Hope" is the enemy of happiness because it prolongs the torment of man.

Who said that, Freud? Nietzche?

Regardless, it applies. Just replace hope with "this is just a hobby and I enjoy testing concepts" and you'll be fine. Anyone going into these concepts thinking "I can quit my job next week" might be a tad disappointed.

Test, test, test.

 

@Joe & other mathz, does the math tell you that there's nothing faster than the speed of light?

 

turbo, can you please comment on my system I posted a few posts back?

 

I like to work with the lights on. If you read how I use it as tool you wouldn't be asking the question.

Go back and read how I use the calculation.

 

I've asked Sir Anyone, Benas and Median Joe - who all gave explanations.

The point is - if random has limits which I say it does... you can measure results
and verify when a wheel is not producing random outcomes.
This wouldn't be possible if random meant "anything can happen".

So Sir Anyone can visually detect a potential bias wheel....
Then begins the collection of data.
Data is fed into a program or spreadsheet that shows if there is a bias or not -
what and where to bet on to maximize a nice big win.

If we are to believe that random has no limits - "anything can happen" then this
is a waste of time. A wheel could look bias, chart as bias and then just return to
"normal" and no longer be bias all on it's own. This isn't how it works.

We have (in RX) a simple way to chart spins and a "fail" result can indicate a
bias wheel - meaning the results are NOT random. If this keeps happening
on the same wheel's data - we can be assured that we aren't getting random
outcomes. This means the outcomes are "outside" of those limits.

I'm not sure how they argue both sides but they do.
It would be easier to just say "random has limits" - when outcomes don't fall
within these limits it is not random and can be exploited.

 

BULLSHIT. I have explained myself fully.

So you agree the HE is paid on winning bets?

Do you agree when the session ends the house edge has been paid?

Do you agree there is no future debt to pay, there is no hidden connection to the past sessions?

Do you agree your sessions, sir anyone's sessions have no bearing on the future outcomes of yours mine or his future sessions?

State your position. I want this out in the open.

 

One can use Bayes theorem to estimate the bias.

Oops, I just shared an AP "secret" in the open.

 

SirAnyone surely know this math fact.
Yet he remained silent, refuse to point out his crew's mistakes.
That's why it's a waste of time when they post with agenda.

For the benefit of the readers,

Random does not mean "anything can happen".
Random does not mean equal opportunity to occur.

Individual spin is not predictable.
The distribution of spins is highly predictable.

Three common mistakes made on this forum.

 

Ignorance is bliss

 

Easy to figure out his knowledge when he insisted anything is possible in infinity time.
Don't waste time respond to his post.

 

There is no such thing as roulette spins is not random to me but random to others.

The quality of roulette spins is either random or not random. This random quality is not dependent on the observer.


Benas opined several times that "this set of spins is more random than another".

This is wrong.

It's either random or not random.

There is no such thing as more random and less random. Random cannot be measured against itself.

 

Amazingly, there will no doubt be disagreement that you can be half pregnant.

 

While we are at this .. @TurboGenius

I found a very interesting TRNG - True Random Number Generator, precisely QRNG - Quantum .....
https://qrng.anu.edu.au/dice-throw/
https://qrng.anu.edu.au/random-binary/

Here's the cleared output file consisting of ≈23000 numbers.
I wonder how this passes/fails the RX test; is it a better alternative to random.org ?

 

LOL .. bars getting void one by one...

 

Nice find and good Australian research.

You have no idea the lengths that intelligence agencies to go to to ensure their sources of entropy have no local bias or can be observed by anyone else.