TurboGenius When does it lose ?

Rinad, would you mind giving us warning when you're going to post again? I was having a cup of tea when I read your post and most of it came out through my nose and onto my desk.

More paper towels please!

You guys are priceless. Better than the finest entertainment money can buy.

 

Just don't include me in your "you guys" list. Lol

 

Just to share, I did a test like this: I waited for each sleeper to hit once, and then started to play each for 26 (also 69) spins only. Didn't notice anything significant in the results.

 

Here's the deal. The math is based on playing a random game with random numbers. As soon as you figure out that you can accurately guess the next outcome accurately more often than not that math is no longer applicable. The math now needs to do new calculations. Now you can scream and yell all day long that nobody can guess the next outcome. That's fine, that's your opinion. But you have to admit that if they do that the math needs to be refigured. Because I now have the edge over the casino, and that's a fact.

 

And it's all rendered meaningless once you have the ability to accurately guess the next outcome more often than not. Everything you mentioned goes flying out the window and is replaced by new mathematical calculations. Such as you now have a massive Edge over the casino every time you play.

 

It really boils down to that. There is no way that the mathBoyz will ever believe that or understand it. The funny part is that it follows basic arithmetic. This even goes beyond when it's playing your game, when it works, good timing, lucky streaks, etc... It's so simple that this pretty much ends discussing it. I'll be trying Bovavda again and R-Sim is very interesting going after just one net win. I think I'll sit back like a few other players around here do. Nobody has changed the minds of the mathBoyz in the past 15 years. Maybe that is the longest running coincidence?

 

My three manual tests up till now, included a complete rotation of numbers less the last few, betting from each 1st numbers' appearance onwards -- this variation either up to two hits or 69 spins =remove the number.

After ≈complete rotation 2/3 tests in positive, 1 had 19/37 numbers so just above 50% & below the 55% expected return of 2 hits, the rest either a hi or none in 69 spins ≈ -200u at 180th spin -- all numbers rotated.


This was pushing it to see its boundaries & limits. All three tests performed ≈100u profit relatively quick as soon as Aa few hits in a row were realized; that gives the restart parameter, which is also a hit in first 7 spins.

 

They understand it they just don't believe it's possible.
Math people live in a world where math explains everything. If you try and throw a monkey wrench into that world they go batshit crazy. Math is their reality and if you say you can change the math by changing the parameters which they think are set in stone they think you're insane.

 

Sounds good, can’t wait to taste it

 

I'm making a stew. It's starts with Chinees batshit.

 

ND. Fuggett it

 

Pay attention
I'm about to wise you up. It's absolutely true that past spins have no effect our future spins and are completely independent of each other. But. Past spins can have BEARING on making a choice of where to place a bet on future spins. Here is an obvious example. You just saw 25 Reds in a row. What do you think is going to happen next. 25 more reds a row? Not likely. What's going to happen very soon is you're going to start seeing black numbers hit, and there's a very good chance there will be a lot of them in the next 15 or 20 spins. Maybe not, but as soon as black hits I would certainly be betting on it. From observation of past outcomes that's usually how it works. Not always, but usually.
What makes you think that there are not other past outcome circumstances where you can make an educated guess from observation as to what happens next. Of course there is, there would have to be. You just don't know what they are because it takes a very long time of observing the game to figure it out. And most gamblers being lazy by nature, that's why they gamble after all, to get something for nothing, will never take the time to figure it out. They will wait for somebody else to do all the work and then show them how to do it.

 

You have already left the casinos with an extra $9,999 and happy that all the mathBoyz were still looking for a bias wheel.

 

Because MJ argues against it repeatedly. He keeps quoting the 2 hits in 69 spins is wrong and IT IS EXACTLY the same calculation as 1 head in 3 flips.

This is where you say the calculation is wrong. It's the very same binomial distribution calculation as three flips of a coin. It can't be correct for the coin case whilst being wrong for roulette spins unless you're saying the spins are not independent. Both cases are Bernoulli trials.

Quite clearly the probability is greater than 50% to make a profit. You just don't like it. If you actually do some research their are published papers that examine the gain factor for different bets. It is the case that EC bets do not offer the same gain factor as a single bet. It is the case that if you actually bother to calculate the cummulative losses and the cummulative wins up to 69 spins we have an optimal ev per spin.

I've explained how to do those calculation and you have not been able to refute them.

Instead you argue to make noise, obfuscate and confuse as you're part of a team with vested interests and the truths are inconvenient.

I agree to a point but I use and have shown math that challenges the niave views. Most if not all of the mathbois don't actually understand the tool they use to beat everyone over the head with, they picked up a superficial understanding on forums and delight in being elite. They don't like when their niave assumptions and views are challenged. They don't believe it when every calculator on earth disagrees with their position.

 

I do not follow in detail your talks but looks to me that the main talk is about are edge or not.
That you have expectation see 1 head in three throws 0.875 not create to you an advantage!
I think the main talk was about this?
To open a calculator and enter numbers is not a big science - science is to know what to do and how to use results...

 

Personally I would have jumped on at about spin number 9 and rode it to the end knowing I could only lose once. I've only seen that many Reds in a row one time and that was years ago in Vegas. I think the world record is either 29 or 35 blacks in a row and it happened decades ago.

 

Most Indian casinos will let you bet $2,000 to $5,000 on red or black. I would jump on at at 5 or 6 of the way in. And yes, after the first win it's a free ride all the way. It's a bag of gold waiting just to pick it up. I've seen 20 or more several times. It's still rare, but what the heck. It's just sitting there and all you risk is one loss. 20 times $5,000 is $100,000. Jackpot!

It just cracks me up that the mathBoyz would rather be right and pass it all up than ever be caught thinking or being caught risking a dime on luck as they call it. And we are supposed to be the suckers living on fallacy. MathBoyz blinders fallacy. They get to keep being dressed by their mom though. That's a plus.

 

The point I've been trying to make is math is useful for understanding aggregate probability of X outcomes in Y spins.

I've also shown how to compute the cummulative losses and cummulative wins and encouraged everyone to actually do the math themselves and get an understanding of probability so they don't have to believe anything.

This also intersects with when is house edge paid. I've explained it is paid on a win only, MJ disagrees and says house edge is paid on a loss but can't explain his math. He also believes there's a magic link and dependence between sessions, yet simultaneously believes that all spins are independent.

I firmly assert all spins are independent and have never claimed otherwise. I also assert all sessions are independent and any negative variance and positive variance and house edge is fully realised on each event and accounted for and the end of the session crystalises a new bankroll value. There is no creeping death monster. Your betting method and the bets themselves determine the variance and expose you to more or less variance. Variance is a double edged sword, it's the only thing that beats the house edge in the short game and it also is where we can lose more in the short term than the probability suggests. Probability is a theoretical concept, with infinite spins is where it's perfectly realised and there is zero variance.

Given that a session crystalises a new bankroll result all variance, positive or negative and all house edge payable has been accounted for. There's no hidden wizard cursing your future sessions as that's just another fallacy.

 

Only
if you cannot spot when the outcomes stops playing your game. If you try to play through the negative variance you're going to lose your ass.

 

No one gave a direct answer to your good question.