Roulette More Proof of Turbo's fallacy

I'll post replies in my own section on this topic.
To keep making threads in the section here is meaningless,
we all agree numbers should appear 1 in 37 - to keep trying to prove otherwise is nonsense.

 

Lol

 

This is also very important. For him is important where to write - in his own section... eh.
What , if we all will create own sections and every will write only in them .. ?

 

Nope. When an unhit number appears it stays in the betting pool until the end of the session. Look again. The asterisk marks the spin where an unhit number FIRST appears.

Again, no. What I've done is to show that Turbo's claim is false. I didn't set out to do that deliberately hoping it would fail, but those are the results. Deal with it.
Why on earth would I WANT it to fail? Would I not benefit as much as anyone else if the system worked as he claimed? But nobody but a gambler would play a system live without intensive testing, and I'm not a gambler.

Look, I've nothing against Turbo personally, and maybe he really has won every time he's been to the casino. Good for him. Obviously I can't prove that he hasn't, but on the other hand, he can't prove that he has. Posting one-off charts, or even several which show great results is misleading. It seems he isn't able to code his systems in RX so he has to make do with manual testing. Apart from being inefficient this doesn't give the full picture and it's prone to curve-fitting and (perhaps unintentionally) biasing the results.

What you're asking is for me to do your testing for you. It seems you value coding otherwise you'd be content with manual testing of a few hundred spins. Get off your lazy ass and learn to code. Even if you don't find your HG it's a valuable skill to have.

 

Yeah. And I deliberately started a new thread for this because I didn't want it to be buried in the middle of the existing one, surrounded by irrelevant garbage. I wanted it to be the first post. And besides, I had the chance of winning a prize (ok, maybe I do gamble sometimes, but it didn't cost me anything).

 

Yes, but what does that have to do with my simulation? I wasn't trying to prove that numbers don't appear 1 in 37, I was testing your claim that betting on the unhits gives an advantage.

 

Here is one of main his sentences. So he thinks , that can win when hits are worse than 1/37...But think , or believe is not enough.

Normal peoples understand that wins are when somebody do something better than...other, or more often, or something other but this kind...

In roulette such situation is when is normal distribution, so when you have Gaussian curve you have chance for winning . In other situation - you not have such chance.

When you look how often numbers appears - you have - not normal, but geometrical distribution - gave loss. This is what Turbo not undeerstand.
Not possible win if look to geometrical distribution, but possible, if look , or say bet accordingly normal distribution !

So to prove that you can win - enough to show how you get normal distribution... all is very simple , if know what is these distributions and how one differs from another...

 

eh..no.
I post in this section too but I won't post the same thing in 5 threads. Keeping it in one place is best.

 

All we have to do is bet the unhit numbers once they hit and we'll win? Wow, why didn't someone discover this novel approach before?

 

In that

In

In that case, I withdraw the written; & no, neither am I asking of you that, nor I do not trust others' test .. unless the result replicated by me, & me alone.

 

They did, have you only just heard? Bet you feel silly now. All those years of flying around the world, spending hours scouting for wobbly wheels. You could have just gone to your local or played online.

 

Ok, and that includes Turbo's tests too, does it?

I deliberately included a lot of details in the file so you could see I wasn't biasing the results to suit my "agenda" (I don't actually have one, but you assume I do). You can even provide the spins if you like.

What nonsense.

 

No, as far as Turbo's tests .. those are his tests .. & no, you've said that you have an agenda.. something along 'truth'. Admittedly I've only had a look of the first session, taking your comment into an account I've simply withdrawn my incorrections, as I always do. Even when I am wrong, I am right.



Me, I tested some of my own sessions, reproducing Turbos posted example in detail .. & go figure .. I've just realized something new that I had trouble comprehending in namely DrTalos lore .. created crossovers, exploring the adaptation of it within my system (based on principles DrTalos mentioned & several others), etc.

Truth be told I've certainly got a new insight into the game that took it to a whole another level & opened before not aware of & unseen possibilities.

 

MJ, for someone so set against Turbo’s method, you are giving it a lot of airtime.
How can you seek to disprove a method when you don’t know what the method is? If I was you I would just say good luck and move on.

 

Joe, Turbo test are good, but your are...bad

 

Now, does that (bet unhit no° after it first appearance, till in positive) consistently flat bet .. I haven't made enough tests to conclude on my own , although if you ask me at this point -- honestly, due to my Turbo's exprience of reading his posts .. I don't think he would spill out the complete consistently working version; then again I don't think public forums wise anyone would ..

& the concepts & principles have to be PERFECTED.



I've been extremely busy today, so upon your comment & advice, I am having another, in-depth, look into your file report just now -- writing as going through.



Well;

session2 --There are 5 unhit numbers: 3 11 19 30 31 -- +8
you haven't removed #30 after a hit; honest mistake, purposefully? only you can tell.. neither have you've #3 after its hit-- letting them roll on eventually aside n#11.

first off, 2/5 numbers winning so quick you could've already closed the session; especially knowing the last three numbers can take ages to complete + regarding connected with another, in my opinion very important, aspect -- having sufficient amount of numbers symbiotically offer cumulative hit avg

second off, you''ve added #11 just before the cycles end & intentionally ended the session at the exact 37th spin

so, in addition to running #30,3 for almost a full 37-spin cycle unnecessarily thus a) greatly reducing the profits made at session's take-off, adding that #11 further reduced that 2/5 hits.

OK, I might reason with you on 3 numbers left, finish the session. I might also reason with stopping the session by removing a hit number when nearby but below ±0, providing that other numbers' profit symbiotically covers for that .. nonetheless, I've would most likely only opt for that after it passed eg. 72 no-hit spins with two hits recovering nost, & still satisfying the acceptable session profit.

But, the rest, MJ, is a complete fluke.

In case of removing the 2/5hits (=appeared unhit numbers upon hit), which you didn't, the number #11 should continue into the 3rd 37-cycle (1st tracking, onwards betting) securing it hit since statistically advantageous tending to 1/37 with potentially hitting a few times relatively close by --

although as mentioned with 3 no°s remaining the session should have been already terminated, me, I would prefer to do that way before securing minimum profit, & restart gaining the cumulative hit ratio advantage provided by 'more numbers played'. If deeper in the recovery, requiring (at least) two hits to profit, I would downsize to 'fewer numbers played' to secure higher profit on the number's second of its hit in the potentially more frequent or congested variance interval; kind of towards the exposition before the first hit .. essentially jumping from fewer to more numbers played per block of spins & vice versa.

If a number hits 'so' many times .. it makes sense getting higher payout on (at least some of its) hits. √




Bottom line, session 2 hasn't been played according to two core rules

• start betting the unhit number upon its first appearance √
• remove the number upon hit, either in profit or later in session nearby providing that the total is in (acceptable) profit
• there's other additional rules/guidelines mentioned bettering the method overall, & potentially yet more

• you've purposefully decided to end the session at 37th spin threshold
• you've purposefully played numbers onwards although securing a hit & profit
• you've purposefully ran an unhit & appeared till the threshold without receiving a hit on hit

Your session total amounts to +8, per rules on first hit +25 (can be closed already) & second +48; greatly deteriorating the method's overall performance & its cumulative total with already one session only (by a rate of 6x). Purposefully?? Only you can tell ..

 

Let's revisit session1 --
There are 9 unhit numbers: 7 9 13 14 20 24 26 28 30 (2nd cycle)
(listed in order of appearance, hit x spin of it appearance over 2nd & 3rd 37-spin cycle)

#24 hit on 33th spin (-3) .. you continued betting; ok .. although questionable being near the end of the 3rd cycle,
due to other numbers' hits might compensate for the slight difference with still being acceptably satisfiable
#20 hit on 24th spin (+12) .. continued betting although in positive already, ran it till the end of the 2nd cycle; why?
#26 hit on 25th spin (+11) .. same as above #20
#9 hit on 37th spin (-2) .. same as above #24
#14 hit on 10th spin (+26) .. unlike the other#s that hit that were removed at the end of the 2nd cycle, you've ran this over into the 3rd .. ok

There are 4 unhit numbers: 7 13 28 30
#30 no-hit (-30) .. ran it till the end of the 3rd cycle, closed the session; why?
#7 no-hit (-16) .. same as above
#13 no-hit (-12) .. same as the above
#28 no-show .. throughout all three cycles


End of Session, Accumulated bank over all sessions = 16.



Now let's look at the profit/two rules.
(ordered in spins since 38th spin onwards)

8th spin #24 appears
9th spin start betting, #20 appears
13th spin #26 appears (-9)
22th spin #22 appears (-36)
32th spin #14 appears (-76)
33th spin #20 by itself (+12), remove the #20 -- #20 hits, 6ⁿ numbers played (+31) -- total (-45)
37th spin -- end of 2nd cycle (-61)
38th spin #26 hits (+11) remove -- 4ⁿ (+32), total (-29)
42nd spin #14 hits (+26) remove -- 3ⁿ (+33), total (+4) → END SESSION

if opting to continue
44th spin #30 appears (±0)
58th spin #7 appears (-28)
59th spin #9 hits (-2) nearby ±o remove -- 3ⁿ (+33), total (+5) → END SESSION
62th spin #13 appears (-1)
74th spin -- end of the 3rd 37-spin cycle (-38)


presuming the outcomes are continuous =same permanence due to "End of session .. Accumulated bank .. New session"
75th spin -- remaining #7,13,30 - no-show #28 -- (-37)
78th spin #28 appears (-46)
79th spin #13 hit (+19) remove -- 4ⁿ (+32), total (-14)
81st spin #7 hits (+13) remove -- 3ⁿ (+33), total (+19) → END SESSION

Max exposition at any point, irregardless when calling session end, (-76.)

As you can see there's 3 in-profit closing opportunities flat bet.


Again, you most definitely haven't played according to the above-mentioned two core rules.



* the permanence is included in Joe's 1.4MB above-uploaded file.

 

Session 3 -- there are 5 unhit numbers: 3 11 19 30 31.

#30 hit on 5th spin (+32) .. you continued betting till 37th spin .. no wonder why any longer!
#3 hit on 17th spin (19) .. same as above
#11 no-hit (-13) .. bet till 37th spin & discontinued with the session closed

Accumulated bank over all sessions = 8



per two core rules

3rd spin #30 appears
4th spin #3 appears (-1)
8th spin #30 hit (+32) remove -- 2ⁿ (+34), total (+27) → END SESSION ?
21st spin #3 hits (+20) remove -- 1ⁿ (+35), total (+50) → END SESSION !

2/5 numbers hit, over (+50).


Duh.



What's the impact on the total sessions profit. Hmmm ..


Overall profit;
• minimum profit (25+4+27) =(+79)
• continuing a bit further (48+19+50) =(+117)
vs
your measly (+8)

 

That's what I mean in the first place .. only now noticed who the hell knows where did the *not* go.
Which brings everything I've written in its context.

You ain't playing as suggested, especially not as by Turbo in his example -- meanwhile purposefully using *YOUR* method to disprove Turbo's.

Phhh.

Its you who's curve-fitting.