TurboGenius Here we go again

SirNoOne,

We know you can't produce Turbo's super simple rsim chart.

And you're trying to fool uneducated ignorants with your guessing correlation.

 

WHILE is open to interpretation.
Too few results, too many results << imo, too many results/spins, could/usually also mean, TOO late.

Ken

 

WTF ??????????????

Fast test of 200 spins from airball, "horse race system", no progression at all



Hmmmmmm, How this can be possible????

 

Is the system you are using open for more testing by others? I'd like to find out what happens after like 5k or 10k spins.

 

Winer is not that, who demonstrate wins on RX, but that - who have forces and knowledges and who can demonstrate it direct in casino...
Simulations on RX have no benefit, when the same you cant repeat in casino...or at least on data from real wheel which initially you not know.

Posting charts from RX - not need big science and knowledges....

 

Scammers only exist because there's a market for their systems, and if you're in the market for a system you obviously first have to believe that they can work. How do people come to believe it? Forums like this one are responsible to a great extent; so many members claiming that they win -- how can they all be wrong!? So you start earnestly working on your system but it never seems to quite get there. You begin to think that you're not smart enough to figure it out, and that's when you're ripe for the scammers.

You hear the argument : "why would anyone sell a system when they can just use it themselves?"

It seems to make sense, but it's too late, you're hooked. Once you've made the leap to believing that systems can work, it's no longer quite so hard to believe that someone might have a plausible reason for selling them. After all, why shouldn't they? it's not as though the odds will be affected if too many people are using the system, as is the case with sports betting. And maybe the seller says he's been banned from casinos, but wants to make it available to others. There are testimonials on his site, and he even offers a money-back guarantee, so what have you got to lose?

You may not be selling systems for money, but your "buyers" are still paying for it in other ways -- time, effort, increased vulnerability to being scammed, and ultimately disappointment, or worse. Misinformation always has negative consequences.

But let's suppose you really do have cast-iron winning methods which just can't lose.
If you really want to help people financially, which is what you claim, you could easily set up a web site or app which would tell people what to bet on and when. Kind of like a tipster service for roulette. It would be a win-win because everyone would get the benefit of your systems but no one would know the rules, so your intellectual property would be protected. If I had a winning system that would be the model I'd use. You could either charge a monthly subscription fee (and give a free trial first) and give the proceeds to your favourite charity, or make it entirely free.

You would have nothing to lose by doing this and everything to gain; the satisfaction of helping people and increased adulation on the forum and elsewhere. In time you might even hear from the academics at MIT, Harvard and Cambridge. Such attention would surely be enough for that big-as-a-barn ego of yours.

 

This is nonsense. Any system that is tested properly on any fair RNG and is winning constantly will be good enough to play on any wheel. I see clues recently that RNG produces even huger negative variances, so after proper testing, you will be good to go.

 

So then maybe all clothes and shoes, which i tested on myself will be good enough for any other .

First moment is this

looks that you saw millions such systems ...
Second - every wheel is different and very rare what works on one - works also on another...if you was in casino - must that know ...

 

It really doesn't matter what the method is and if it eventually fails, it could be based on a system or on physical characteristics.

What is important is that you understand the probability of a successful session and the average profit margin and the probability and loss of a losing session.

The profit needs to be sufficient to compound at a rate that exceeds the session loss rate.

Let's say you make an average of 25% per session and you have a risk of losing your entire session bankroll at a rate of 1 in 10. Let's say you have a $5k session bankroll.

After 5 sessions you have replaced your buyin and made $6250 in profit on top of your original $5k so a losing session is a setback. The win rate exceeds the loss rate so you stand a reasonable chance to make some money and sustain your play against the losses.

But it's not optimal.

If you were instead reinvesting over short runs and increasing your unit size you will have over 2 bankrolls of profit ($10k) after 5 winning sessions. Take out your original $5k and put in back in the bank. And split into two $5k bankrolls, 1 primary and 1 reserve each being $5k. Keep repeating this process.

Any losing session is almost fully replaced in 3 winning sessions and by 4 sessions you have made another 44% of an additional profit. By session 5 you have made back the lost bankroll back plus another one in profit. Keep building reserve bankrolls so you can sustain back to back session losses.

Best advice is to not play a method that fails so often. You want to increase your likelihood of session win streaks so that you can play the session compounding game, take profit and then split into primary and reserve bankrolls. Eventually get to the point that you increase your base units whilst a session bankroll is merely 5% of your overall bankroll.

The above illustrates that even a bad strategy that has a 1 in 10 probability of a total loss can still win.

A 5k spin failure rate is irrelevant, a 5 session win rate of 25% is enough, even if not ideal, it's enough.

 

The horse race analogy is how it's explained best - the big difference being that in this game you can choose the horse to
bet on at every step in the race. So I ask you - if you could bet on a horse race at any time in the race... would you not
bet on the horse that is a second away from crossing the finish line over the horse that was still at the starting gate ?

Yes, so simulations have no value to you but to prove something you want it tested over a large number of spins....
Data from real wheels is useless isn't it ? Those are past spins. Showing something working using past spins is a fallacy,
is it not ? Always going in circles. To demonstrate it in a casino we would need to get everyone here to the same casino so
they could all watch...and when it's over you can say "not enough spins". I demonstrate it to myself in the casino but that
also isn't good enough is it ? Not to you, no.

Time, effort and hard work are how you find ways to win. And winning isn't a disappointment. Have you considered that
posting information can help people win and therefore have no negative consequence ? So you're coming from the
viewpoint that nothing can win - if you try to win you'll just lose. I can't imagine how to show you otherwise.
1,000,000 spins and all the proof in the world would just mean I'm leading you on to an extreme level now.
You don't seem open to accept that there are ways to win. That's fine as well. Other do want to learn new things,
look at things from a different point of view and test ideas - if their ideas all lose and 1 wins then it was worth it to have
kept going. I ignored the naysayers since day 1 and never stopped trying because they told me it can't work.
I don't consider it a waste of time at all. I'm always open to learn new approaches regardless of knowing what works.

I don't need attention - everyone says that, trust me. Even people I know in the ""real world"". That's the problem
with being in my position and if you stop to think about it you can understand why. Sure I can sit and say nothing
but that isn't how it works. If I say something then I'm "seeking attention". If I post for decades on forums and
have a huge following - now I'm overboard "seeking attention". Anything I say can be viewed as "seeking attention".
It's fine though, I'm used to it. If you wait long enough - 1/2 the crowd will see you as a hero and 1/2 as the villain.
There's not many people who think "Oh... he's just trying to help people".
The comment was funny though.

 

So true. In fact it hurts a little. You can spend an entire evening guessing on ending patterns just as you try them. But many more times you can get at least one net win off of them more times than not, hence the use of EC's. I see way more patterns or trends that are not too late. It stands to reason that a way to deal with all this must be discovered. It has. Guess what?

If you just take one net win off each promising pattern then you have that one net win. But if you try to get a second net win off of it you might lose and then you have just aggregated nothing as the result. It takes a third net win to protect against the eventual loss at the end of the run. Those three in a rows or greater are more rare in a session. So if you just take the one net win and no more risk on that trend then you will end up keeping more in the long run. Most people don't see this with trends and patterns. They want the huge win streak.

 

I am labeled a scammer because I charged the first student money. I did it so that I would get a motivated student. I wanted that if I was going to blow two months at two hours per day. He was a fully engaged student all the way to the end. I also wanted someone with only a little playing experience. My goal was for me. I wanted to know if RR could be taught. I wanted to know if this was something that came with decades of playing experience or something else. So I found out what I wanted to know. Now you have my thread for self teaching. This is not a mentored course. Some people asked questions along the way but the resource is completed. It's an entirely different experiment into what I want to know if it is effective enough. Once again, this is for what I want. It's free, so it must be worthless. And if you pass it up and that ends up being a mistake that you made doing that then it's a shit sandwich. So I get the best of both worlds. It's not a scam and you get to eat shit. I think that is a pretty good deal. What do you think about the way that I assemble algorithms in the form of social experiments? I'm guessing that not a single mathBoyz will ever change their minds. I recommend some salt and pepper on your turds with some horseradish for a kicker.

 

This is funny. This altruism from a mathBoyz is sort of refreshing. I beat you to it Zombie. It's already out there and free. Man you have to love the way that these guys figure shit out.

Just in case you just missed it,,, clue--- You are a scammer at heart. Got to get that recognition from MIT.

 

Your demonstrations to himself are not interesting to me - you here acordingly them can say what you want and posts charts which you want. I met many such who claimed, that they can move mountains, but in moment of our met - their all abilities suddenly disapeared...

 

YES Benas; you are absolutely "right", all past tests on RX are worthless, no matter if spins were recorded direct in casino. Specially if numbers were written from airball machine because as we know that one is when we simply test on history numbers which we did not play, but total other can be when play in live- so machine direct reacts on our bets.

Point was not a graph itself, BUT today I tried something other (Turbo and Luckyfella) idea regards flat betting and result shocked me because before I always used progressions. So from here that WTF ;-)

Another worthless test from airball (yesterday recorded numbers):

(played direct on numbers only, played all spins, max 1 eur/number.)

YES, WORTHLESS, STUPID test

 

And what is benefit from that test to you ??? If you have too much time - then sure - can kill some - for making such ...
Publishing such charts - not will do good player from you ...

 

How point is not graph itself when you post nothing more
If you post only chart - point is in it if you post some function , formula ..etc point in it , if post you genial math knowledges - point is in them...

 

Read it again I suppose - or do your own testing and you'll see exactly what I'm explaining.
The post in that link and the results were based on 3 horses competing in a 1 lap race.
(of no value since you can't know which horse will win until it happens, then you are left
with the other 2 - both equally could finish next)
As you extend this outward once you have that principle down - say to 12 horses with 9 laps.....
you will completely understand what this is about. Or you can deny that 1:16 (or better) on a 1:37
location happens over and over and over again. Easier to deny it and move on I suppose.

 

Benas, please do us a favor and for beginning start to ignore all posted graphs and then continue with ignoring of posts

 

We are ignoring them already .The cats who post them have nothing better to do .