TurboGenius Advantage of Repeaters explained - part 3 - 2020

When are you going to respond to Dr Sir's actual arguments instead of indulging in Ad hominem?

Why would he bother when simple logic tells you it can't work? It would be like evaluating the expression 1 + X + 1 -X by substituting many different values for X, hoping that the answer will be something other than 2. An absurd waste of time.

Yes, the famous Law of the Third, which tells you it always pays to bet on repeaters. I have a little quiz for you: LOTT says that in 3 spins, you will only see 2 dozens on average. In other words, it takes more than 3 spins to see all 3 dozens. In fact, it takes 5.65 spins, on average, before all 3 dozens hit. This is what Turbo showed us.
So you walk up to the roulette table and observe the first 2 outcomes, which are dozen 1 & dozen 2. Which dozen is more likely to hit next?

1. Dozen 1?
2. Dozen 2?
3. All dozens are equally likely to hit on the next spin?

 

That's all fine and dandy in the long run but we're playing in the extreme short-term and I used to play dozens and columns it doesn't quite work like that. And because you're betting two units and winning one unit, it would be very dangerous to use law of the third on dozens or columns.

 

He's very quiet lately...grins
I suggest making sheets like TG does ...over and over again till you see it...

 

Turbo mentioned that in this thread (first post):

And he thinks that those two dozens have a higher chance of appearing than the dozen which hasn't appeared yet, based on his stat (which is very close to the one I posted -- the only difference is that mine is based on math, not taken from actual data). Do you agree? anyone?

 

Until you see what? Do you agree with him that you have a better chance of a win if you bet on the first two dozens? If so, why?

 

I have no interest in talking to you. You're annoying AF just as that wobbly wheel mofo who tried to make me collect data from a casino in Antwerp that's wasn't even there. Lmao....

Bye Bye

 

I just thought the Turbo fan boys might be interested in your insights. But if you don't know, that's ok.

 

[/QUOTE]

No thanks, you already said they don't their own research, just follow each other. Besides most math geniuses aren't very wealthy.

 

All the naysayers would never actually do any of the work themselves. They just stick their heads in the sand and applaud each other for a job well done.

 

No, we just recognize that there's no point in doing any work because we know from basic probability and clear thinking that it's pointless.

Still no answer to my quiz, I guess Turbo's post fell on deaf ears.

 

A factory that makes powdered soap in boxes was having a problem. Every once in awhile a box didn't get filled and was shipped empty to the customers. This was becoming a growing concern as the customers started complaining they weren't getting the product they paid for. The plant manager, a highly educated individual, started to investigate. He brought in a engineering team. They went to work designing a new conveyor system with scales and x-ray scanners to make sure non of the boxes being shipped were empty. The plant janitor watches all of this and goes up to the plant manager and says " I can fix your problem for $50" The plant manager dismisses him and said don't worry we have it all covered. They go on installing the new system at a cost of $5,000,000. It works. The expense cost the company some money so they lay off the janitor.

The janitor finds a new job at a company across town making the same soap. They end up having the same problem with the empty boxes. This plant manager investigates as well. The janitor again says "I can fix your problem for $50." This plant manager, sees a person that may solve the problem with intellect, rather than education. He asks for the janitor's solution and gives the janitor $50. The janitor goes and buys a fan, places it beside the conveyor belt it and turns it on. All the empty boxes are blown off the line.

Educated people are taught to think a certain way, not all but the process of becoming educated ingrains that. Not all educated people are intelligent.

A lot of people confuse education with intelligence. Give me the janitor that thinks outside the box over the trained math wizard every day.

 

I like this
Think outside the box
(See what I did there)

 

I and others do the work, investigate for ourselves and apply what we discover to profit. Rather than sit around for years on forums wasting time saying it can't be done.

The real quiz is why are you here if you don't believe?

 

Nimo, some educated people use their knowledge to find anomalous patterns in random.

Other educated people use their knowledge to explain why anomalous patterns don't exist among random.

 

Nimo, some people feel superior to correct the wrong knowledge posted on roulette forums. That's their purpose on gambling forums. To them it's time well invested.

They are not active on gambling forums to learn how to win with systems betting.

 

Why is it that the people that know very little about the math, basic probability, and the history of the game are so certain that all of experts, math/probability, and even history are all wrong?

 

Luckyfella,

I've noticed that you like to pretend that you're well educated. So here's your chance. Show us how math can used to beat the random game of roulette. Explain to us all why all of the experts, mathematicians, and history are all wrong.

 

The smart ones think out of the box and apply financial math to find a solution

 

Financial math? Sorry, but it won't help you beat the random game of roulette either. In math, and even in you're "financial math" if you multiply a negative number times a positive one, you're outcome will still be a negative one. If you disagree, then feel free to explain why we're all wrong.