Roulette Repost of 1961 video for those who asked for it

After #5 has hit three times, then how you do you know it won't go hundreds and hundreds of spins without hitting?
How do you know the cold number won't suddenly start hitting instead?

After #5 has hit three times, then how do you know it won't just fall back to zero hits over the next 37 spins?

Then you're a time traveler huh? LOL!!! If the bet looses do you just travel back and time and remove the bet? LOL!!!
Again, once you bet on a number, you run the risk of that number never hitting for you. Understand?

If that's the case then you should be able to change wheels at every spin, right? Meaning...you can just walk from table to table and place your bet?

 

Quotes from the video :

"I can make STATISTICAL predictions".

"You must realize that a SINGLE marble still behaves unpredictably."

Unfortunately, you still haven't grasped the above, Turbo.

You say that independence applies only to the next single spin. No, it applies to any sequence of spins. What you're saying is like insisting that a wall built from individual red bricks is actually a green wall, lol. Knowing the past 1, 10, 100, or 1000 spins doesn't help to predict the next 1, 10, 100 or 1000 spins. That is to say, the distribution will be the same regardless of what happened previously. Yes, you can make quite accurate STATISTICAL predictions (the proportions will be about right), but this doesn't help you one iota at the roulette wheel and the predictions don't depend on what happened previously.

I see this a lot in forums. System addicts point to the reliability of the distribution (the shape is always the same for any given distribution) and jump to the conclusion that this means that spins are not independent after all. They will say "you never see X or Y happen, (like 100 reds in a row), therefore spins cannot be independent!". This is a misunderstanding of the technical meaning of the term; "Independent" doesn't mean "it can do what it likes", or "free from constraints" but only that P(A | B) = P(A), where A and B are ANY events (and an "event" could consist of many spins, not just one). You're always saying that "random has limits", and this is just you not understanding the difference between independence and the law of large numbers. The LLN says that outcomes are predictable STATISTICALLY, ie that probabilities converge to their theoretical values over many trials. Independence just means P(A | B) = P(A), or "given an event B, the probability of event A is the same regardless of whether event B happened", which is a separate issue entirely. Notice that the definition of independence involves the RELATION between at least two events, but the shape of the distribution (which is what is predictable), isn't a relationship.

If I find a biased wheel then the distribution of numbers may be quite different from that of a random wheel, but if on this biased wheel one of the (positively) biased numbers doesn't appear for many spins, it's still gambler's fallacy to believe that it's due, and it's still the hot hand fallacy to believe that if it starts to "clump" then it's more likely to hit again soon. You have to realize that they are different and separate concepts; saying IF X happens then Y happens (or is more likely to happen) is about independence, and the fact that the outcomes conform to a particular shape or distribution (Random has limits!) does NOT imply that previous outcomes influence future outcomes.

I admit that this seems counter-intuitive. That's why probability theory took so long to develop and most people don't understand it even when it's explained. We have a built in cognitive bias which seeks to find meaning in patterns, and it's served us well, but in this case it's wrong. Some things just aren't connected, roulette spins are one of them.

 

Jerome,

Great post! Well done!

 

Turbo, I admire your passion for roulette, but it's sad to see you attacking the messengers and not the message. You're better than this!

 

This is all the truth.

I'm a well know trend player. To be successful at that I must never expect that something is due. If I see ten Reds in a row it is just the chance coincidence of randomness and independence. I don't have to know when it starts. I have to know if I can catch it in the middle. The only way to do that is to venture capital on a speculation. If my first bet wins then I'm at no risk of losing anything further in the speculation if I continue. On the other hand it might lose on that first bet. So I would be 1 unit down, and I would quit on it. But if it wins and keeps on winning I could be more than 1 unit up. Well all that logic can do is tell me what type of a session I'm experiencing. On that day coincidence cooperated with my style, method, or approach to dealing with noticeable trends. I have learned how to live with these type of risks. I expect to lose the basic long termed expectations that independent spins would result in. The math verifies this and so do my charts. I win because I don't fund parts of sessions that are not working. Now the data on it working or not is real. It's not a fallacy where I expect anything to be due. It shows me what is working and what is not working. I can keep making guesses based on trends. But only the current state of the session can tell me if it works or not. As clear as I have attempted to show this over the years, most people on these gambling forums still get confused and then end up projecting what they think they understand, and comment as if that is what I mean. If people would listen and understand what I mean then they could relate to it better. Someone gave me a T-shirt last years that says "I can tell you but I can't understand it for you."

I can beat casino table games because there are times that my guessing works. I don't fund my guesses when my guesses don't work.

I will venture a strong likelihood though. Turbo will still be here or somewhere on a forum telling people that he now has the HG and it is based on a simple axiom. It will be different than this few years HG. You have to love this guy just for being Roulette's elderly statesman of crash test dummies. He will never stop trying to beat the odds through rules or mechanization where something must happen. It's always been a system. It will always be a system.

 

Buy the dip in the uptrend.
Sell the top in the downtrend.

 

Hi Folks, I will continue in tests, I´m not sure but it seems interesting

 

Jerome, you appear to be an expert on probability, but you never did reply
to a question I asked you more than once, as to why some numbers have
a more favourable parameter than others (re sleeper thread).

I have a more practical understanding of probability and it has served me
very well. The theory relating to probability has its place, but it also has
its flaws, which I have discovered and put to practical use in the game of
roulette and pi (my other project).

 

Excellent, especially the left graph, it is always better to earn 4$ with some adrenaline dose.

 

Like the guy in the stock trading like a casino video. So he admittedly makes 100 trades in five to six months. He states that he has $100,000 portfolio as an example. He notes that he uses 2% of his $100,000 for each trade, $2,000. So if you take his 200 trades in a year at $2,000 he averages $50 per share or 40 stocks average for each trade. He expects to make $3 average after losses once he sells. So that's $120 from each of the 200 trades. That adds up to $20,400 off his $100,000 portfolio per year. That's a hair over 20% actual return on his investment in one year.

Now look at my investments: I have a $10,000 portfolio, (bankroll). I break that into three $3300 session bankrolls. I invest it 5 days a week or 250 days. That's with weekends off and two weeks vacations thrown in. I expect to make $1,000 per day, two sessions per day. So that is the equivalence of 500 trades per year at $540 per trade in earnings. It's more than a quarter of a million. But because of my 2 to 1 ratio, 4.666 wins at three net wins to each lost session at seven net losses, an aggregate win of 2.333 I end up winning $270 times 500 sessions per year. That comes to $135,000 per year return on a $10,000 portfolio. That comes to a 1,350 % return on my investment. I really don't think the stock market is the best place for me. Now that is using $180 & $540 bets. But I do like the mentality presented in that video. Now watch people insist that it cant't be done. I already proved to myself that it can be done. That is exactly why I took on one student. That student produced these numbers.

Anybody know a good tax strategy for gambler's running a gambling sole proprietorship? I have travel expenses and record keeping to get past any audit.

 

I am currently learning Forex, it is interesting. Turbo is supposed to have also an HolyGrail for the Stocks but he didn't give it to me. I have opened a short position on Nikkei indice StopLoss= 21000 TakeProfit= as much as possible lol.

 

I play sessions to win three net base valued wins. If my base value is $100 per bet I get 4.666 or more wins for every lost seven bets at base valued $100 = $700 lost. So it takes 2.333 won sessions to balance just one lost session. But my sessions ratio is 2 to 1. I get twice as much as the balance point. I win more sessions because I only need three net wins to complete them. Where as I need 7 lost bets to reach a lost session. In a game where nearly 50/50 is the long termed outcome I'm expected to win those 2.333. But I get double that amount because of trends and unfunded charted decisions. So that is the claim. I claim that I can beat the casino based on bet selection. and I don't have to leverage the market to do it.

 

Hmm. Maybe I can make you a winner yet !
So you say that you can tell roughly that a prediction is going to be right
(for example 24 different numbers appearing in 36 spins).. but can't tell what numbers they will be because
each spin is independent ? This is a simple matter of "fill in the blank" and can be resolved.
If that's what you're saying. For example - you can predict a pattern to appear in the future
but can't (yet) predict what's going to make that pattern. See, that's a good building block
to explain this to you I think...

Sure there are.
There are patterns such as Law of thirds (see above) where I can accurately predict
12 no shows in 37 spins for example and be almost always right, there are tons of patterns -
much easier to see once they have happened (of course) but the same pattern with different
numbers just appears again - over and over in the future. (and over)
So you're saying there's no patterns, yet there are.
Or your saying that you can't exploit them because 1 single spin is all you can think about
and not a series of spins (session) ? Sir No One has this problem. He knows what happens
on the last spin, is clueless for the next spin though - it's independent.

You know - only certain things can fill a future pattern that we "know" will happen.
For example - there will be repeaters.... a number can't repeat unless it's shown once.
Random means all numbers won't appear once. Therefore a repeat happens.
This is very simple stuff and requires nothing but common sense.

You did a good job of explaining the "textbook" reasons why anti-system people think
they don't work. I'm giving you the basics on why some do. Are you open to understanding
this, or is it all nonsense. I don't want to waste your time or mine.
Cheers.

I'm making another thread (ugh - another one ?) about the limits of random.
It should be very informative. I'll expect to hear that I'm wrong though lol.

 

Ok lets try .What you need for that ?

 

Well, I need random for it to work.
I need to know what pattern I'm going after..
I need the spins during my session (not past spins really..)
and then I can tell you what to bet on.
The pattern completes (at some point... I'm not God. I don't have a time machine either
Sir No One)
I win.
Pretty simple really.

 

So lets see.
I picked the pattern I know is going to happen.
I noted the spins happening and how the pattern was forming (as expected)
I bet on it - I bet more when I was able to predict the winners better
and better over time.
The pattern completes.
I win.
Like I said, pretty simple really.

 

Next try - same pattern, still happened - faster than the first time (I can't control that)
Not as dramatic (sorry). Still won (can't lose)... Strange isn't it ?

 

Hey Turbo, I'm trying to get a better idea on how to go after the numbers that will perform above average and avoid ones that show once and stay at average or go cold, that seems to be the challenge. I know repeaters happen 100% of the time but I'm not really sure how to tell the bad = stay average or go cold, from the good = show above average. I know you can't explain step by step but any push in the right direction helps

 

Turbo doesn't know either. That's why he has such a garrish progression to chase losses until he wins.

 

Turbo,

You remind me of the Martingale players and their little short term graphs trying to prove that it works.