TurboGenius Math and the art of describing randomness

Hopes this makes a light bulb go off in someone's head

 

yes good vid, and once again thank god for the urban myth of the gamblers fallacy. Many years ago i constructed a bell curve to represent the key issue discussed in the vid, in an application of events in baccarat plus bet sizing . Yes the single B or P was most relevant. And was the most money making visual rep I had come across at the time. It is not the holy grail of concepts but it will create epitany moments that become rewarding, once again thanks for the vid
Cheers

 

Nice find ! Very informative.
We'll continue to hear from the misfits that random doesn't produce patterns - even though
it can be demonstrated over and over again. That is part of the topic of my next thread coming soon.

This also relates to part of his presentation in the video above -
Simon is a great guy as well... just saying.

 

This should be good. Just remember this much if nothing else. Math will never tell you when a pattern or trend will start, it won't tell you how long the streak will last, and it will not tell you when the streak will end. But because of these two videos you know that a streak will happen.

You can have an absence of singles in the Red / Black while at the same time have a swarm of singles in the Odd / Even. You can have 20 high numbers in a row in the Low / High grouping while having a swarm of doubles in the Red / Black. Roulette is better than all the other games because you have more opportunities to recognize what has been believed by the majority of people to be anomalies. These factious representations of chaos are in fact common normalization. It's people's minds that get organized to see and relate to things that just don't seem right. When you expect something to happen you are trapped into making decisions that are not likely to evolve. In the one video the tester noticed that the recipient's perception of randomness was mostly limited to one triple and then the occasional double. It was like a poker player's tell. He exploited the weakness in understanding true randomness.

Once you immerse yourself in freeing up your expectations then you open yourself up to a better capacity to observe the now state. Turbo would say that things must happen. I agree. Things, like opportunities, must happen. With Roulette you can have multiple streams of conditional characteristics like described above all occurring at the same time. Most of the times these will be different characteristics. But some gambling sessions also include sequences that a single characteristic will swarm all over the charting data and continue for a much longer period of time. This is the gold mine of gambling. This is the most finest of all opportunities in randomness. Sure, 20 Reds in a row is good. But there will be times when you get 10 Odds followed by 11 high numbers followed by 9 Black numbers, followed by 13 pet numbers from the "Zeros" set, followed by 12 numbers from Kimo Li's "Hemi" set, whatever that is, followed by 8 Red numbers. The characteristic becomes obvious. The human brain can pick this out of a chart in seconds.

The person that tries to see these characteristics through the lens of mathematical formulas or matrix styled pulses will never be able to use visual dexterity to see multiple unique characteristics in opportunity modes. I will be fascinated to see how Turbo applies math to explain randomness. Perhaps it is an expression that math will never explain randomness as far as the absence of large numbers is concerned. One thing is for sure though. You can't have four in a row before you have three in a row.

 

It's always interesting that they all agree (the "maths" people) that random creates patterns.
We all agree that this pattern cannot be predicted before it happens - and that's where they leave it at.

If they would only think ahead and put down the "Gambler's Fallacy" notion, they would see that
the pattern that appears doesn't repeat in the next sequence of spins.
Knowing what the pattern was, knowing that it won't repeat...... is the simple ingredients to make the meal.
But it's hard for them to think this way. As the anti-system people here will say over and over - each spin
is independent (we all agree), but they can't see a group of spins as independent... that they won't produce
the same exact sequence again... It confuses me though - how one could say that each spin is independent,
each session of spins is independent (and creates patterns) - but they don't seem to agree or understand that
the independent pattern that was created won't repeat itself.
So they are on the right track, but haven't gone far enough down the road to see it I suppose.
If you know what won't happen - you sure are in better shape as that possible outcome is now removed.
When you removed possible future events from happening, you narrow down what will happen.
The house edge is so small in this game that even removing 2 numbers equals the playing field between
the house and the player.
Once the amount of numbers is increased, you have moved the advantage to the player's side.
To them - random is unpredictable, yet I can predict a ton of things that will happen in the future and be right.
Both can't be true.

 

It's not stupid to bet on a sequence of spins rather than on one spin at a time hoping to win. In ten spins, all flat betting, you only need to win one more than you lose to come out ahead.

 

Absolutely! I must of had a lightning strike hit me in my head when I realized a group of spins is just as independent as a single spin, but also 10 cycles behaves and forms the same law of thirds patterns just as one cycle does, this is what changed the game for me personally

 

What do you mean, when saying 10 cycles? 10 spins or 10 cycles with say 37 spins each, or what can it be? Thanks.

 

The pattern is binomial distribution. Here's the problem, the pattern that forms fits a 37 or 38 pocket wheel, but the payoff is short of what the pattern says is required to break even. Meaning, you're going to lose, and the pattern proves it.

 

10 cycles of 37 spins each, so 370 spins or in my case here in the states 380

 

MathNazi, the father of all mathZombies. The only binomial distribution I use is the dollars go into my wallet and the dollars go out of my wallet.

I have clearly demonstrated that a person can use a virtual bet selection, that's an unfunded selection, and funded bets to nullify the mathematical mandate of your absolutism argument. When I set the win goal to extremely minimal in the range of a session's wave synchronicity I almost always encounter an uptick in the carrots that reach a level of 1 position up along the way. This can happen after 10 lost virtual bets in a row. Your magical mathematical belief system is a fallacy. It only works your way if all the bets are flat bet on every spin. But I understand that you need to flog this compulsion.
What's in your head - Zombie?"

 

Can you demonstrate for me a cycle of spins where all 37 numbers appear ?
I'm asking because this is where your "math" comes from, not from what actually happens.

You're going to have to understand that 24 numbers appearing in 37 spins means just that.
You'd like to believe that my chances of winning are always 1 in 37 when that clearly isn't the case -
"unless" you can show me all 37 numbers appearing in 1 cycle of spins..... which you can't. It has never happened
in recorded history and never will.

So now spin #1 is over and we have 1 less number in the "never appeared" column and 1 more number in the "potential repeater" column,
etc etc. The math just changed, and it changes with every spin that happens.
My chances of winning are NEVER 1 in 37 because I play more than 1 spin.
But I'll never convince you otherwise - you're stuck on a 1 spin game that can't be beaten without defects.
Which is fine, it's not for everyone.

 

How math can changes when before every spin are the same and the same 37 possibilities?
That you write numbers to two columns nothing change - you can sort numbers, pockets as you want - math stays exactly the same as were hundreds and thousand years before .
The only thing what change math is - when some number/pocket have a greater chance to appear in the next spin, because of some physical features.

 

Huh? You seem to have completely missed the point of the vid, which is to show that the gambler's fallacy is NOT an urban myth.

 

But Turbo, it does. It repeats on average every 1/P spins (where P is the probability of the pattern), just like a number sometimes repeats. A pattern like RBBR has a probability of 1/16 ignoring zero, so this pattern will immediately repeat every 16 spins, on average. It's because spins are independent, meaning that every one of the 16 possible patterns is "available" at any time, including just after it has appeared.

 

Duh, ALL gamblers fallacies ARE URBAN MYTH , just because some idiot believes that after x red had to be a black , that’s a myth , DUH.
not even the math zombies can produce a single equation to support it , that’s why casino makes so much money from so many fools, read the other post this thread, DUH

 

Punkcity,

I think you're confused about what an urban myth is.

 

You don't seem to understand that each individual spin has a 1 / 37 or 1 / 38 chance, but the next 20 spins have no math that deals with trends. There is a math for the next 20 thousand spins. Math can never predict where the streaks will occur, how long they will last, and when they will end, ever. Trying to imply that it does is in fact expecting that something is due. And guess what that is? The absence of a physical reason for bias is not a reason for magical mathematical beliefs.

Turbo uses a past spin charting system to find the hot or repeat numbers as patterns. I use a past spin chart to see where any trend or pattern is in a condition of currently happening. Both of our bets are based on speculation and player's experience. There is no magic math formula or algorithm that explains the process to win the session or to win multiple sessions in the aggregate. It has always been my contention that there will one day be that math. And the discussion on that topic will eviscerate the magical beliefs of the mathNazi's and the mathZombie zealots. I don't go into a casino to win one bet. I go to win the gambling session.

 

You can't beat a casino betting on averages. Does that really need an explanation?

 

a humorous or horrific story or piece of information circulated as though true, especially one purporting to involve someone vaguely related or known to the teller.

First hand witness of an urban myth in play

ME at a high limit baccarat table, on the board 2xp, 2xb, 3xp,2xb , 7th player just posted.

Two fools standing behind me,FOOL ONE says gee look at that you NEVER EVER GET MORE THAN 7 PLAYERS IN A ROW, put five hunge on banker.

Thats the humorous part of the myth because one fool believes that 8 players is impossible, ON the 15 th straight player, fool one says to fool two gees thats rare what are the ODDS of that ever happening.

FOOL TWO is speach less hes just dropped a 8 stage marty , THATS THE HORRIFIC part of the story, the amount of money FOOL TWO lost, he was a wealthy man possibly a doctor or accountant ,must have followed a gambling forum like wov perhaps. Or maybe read your post.

I go (pre virus shut down) to the casino daily and I witness this in all its variations DAILY, I laugh all the time , the dealers laugh all the time after the fools leave, polite dealers here, they want those fools back practicing another urban myth

FOOL ONE informed FOOL TWO a bit of information that he believed to be true from a math point of view , also the bank is most likely to win because of the house edge. Thats fine but in this instance the player was dominating the shoe and did indeed do so for the rest of that shoe .

What part do i fail to understand ? Most people go to the casino EXPECTING TO LOSE BECAUSE OF THE HOUSE EDGE TURNED INTO SOME URBAN MYTH THAT THEY PERPETUATE TO ANYONE THAT LISTENS THE NEXT DAY. FOOL TWO took comfort from FOOL ONE comment of ...GEEE thats rare your just unlucky 9 times out of ten you would have won that, EVEN IN LOSING THE TWO FOOLS CONTINUE THE MYTH. They will come back again and do it EXACTLY the same again. I SEE it EVERY DAY, until they run out of money and dont come back any more.

I am sincere when I say thank GOD for the gamblers Fallacy and all that perpetuate them. ONE point I ALWAYS STATE is
DONT EDUCATE THEM , otherwise i will have to work harder as the casino needs those fools .

DUHHHHHHhhhhhhhh