TurboGenius When does it lose ?

But this has never been a secret, the house edge has nothing to do with the hold. It's been known for decades that the hold on roulette tables in Vegas is about 16 or 17%. That's because people reinvest their winnings over and over and when they lose they throw good money after bad. They teach a course on this in the gambling school at the University of Las Vegas. Here's a breakdown on the hold of most Vegas table games.

https://gaming.unlv.edu/reports/nv_table_hold.pdf

 

double

 

It's not about winning.
It's not a biggest dick contest.
A lucky martingale wins.

It's about the quality of the wins.
That show positive edge.

 

You sound like a desperate man who has to accept that he has been wrong.

 

Yes, that it the truth. But I used the truth to debunk the lie. I can show a video that the guy goes all over the 5% expectation that the house is supposed to win at that rate. He's lying. In fact it's the video that turned me around. And the books all tell the same lie. Math does not determine how much you will win or lose. And we all know they they believe in this magical math specially DrAA; aka Snowman.

 

So flip that video on its head. Play like a stock trader. I mean win the war and don't give a damn about each battle,

 

For the game the house plays they're cut is the house edge. If you keep reinvesting your winnings and subjecting them to the house edge while playing their game they will take all your money. And their hold will be 16 or 17 per cent of the money wagered. If you're game beats the house edge and has an edge of its own you will take a cut of their money every time you play. Why the math people say this can't happen has always been a mystery to me. If the house can invent a game that takes a certain percentage of your money why can't I invent a game that takes a bigger percentage because I have an advantage over the casino in that I can change my game to suit the outcomes. The casino can't do that, they're stuck with their their game as it stands. That's why mechanical roulette that uses an algorithm is so beneficial to the casino. They can change their game in the middle of the game.

 

Take a look at around 6:00 minutes into the video. He explains why stock traders lose more than they take in. It's fear. The same is true for most gamblers. This is about what happens in the mind when they re-invest. They are playing to lose. Because fear makes them make bad choices. If they knew what they were doing by being very good at making bet selections but very bad on how long to stay on a loser or not staying long enough on a winner then even being good will not help them. The casino wins because people don't know how to deal with their own fear. At least I buy that as why mistakes are made with bankroll usage. People also get taken out by running out of room to maneuver with their bankrolls. There's nothing worse than "scared money."

Knowing how to lose correctly is more important than knowing how to win.

 

I said this in another way when I started posting here last week. Learning when not to bet is more important than learning when too bet because it manages your losses. Losses are more important than winnings because you don't need to recover from wins. If you manage your losses, if you try to only bet times when you think you have a chance of winning, the wins will take care of themselves because the losses have been reduced. I know this sounds like obvious duh logic but most people don't do this. I am far more concerned about losing then I am about winning. I try every way I can not to lose and by doing this I win. It's kind of like making every kind of preparation you can before you go and compete in the Olympics. You improve on every mistake you make, on every weakness you have, and you might have a chance of winning. Too many people all they concentrate on is winning and then they wonder why they're not winning. I am also satisfied with a few well won units then I am a bunch of units on a big grind. I enjoy the skill involved in doing this. I will admit this is much easier to do online because when I play online I own the casino. I own it in the sense that it doesn't have a chance. When I play at a brick-and-mortar casino if the outcomes are not playing my game the casino wins even if I don't bet. Cuz I never got a chance to take their money.

 

Turbo I’m not trolling. I allready said I wish you the best, we just dont see eye to eye.

But isnt it obvious if someone shows you something claiming to have a working method and it has so many resets something is off.

But ok you have explained it that you tested your main account for a lot of testing. Ok i’m willing to accept that.

So here you started a new test 20.000 in the plus by flat betting. Agreed that is impressive. But you say you restarted 8 times. 7 won and 1 lost. Why did you restarted the 6 other ones while they were in profit???

And the one that failed was a loss of 3000? So how big must the bankroll be? To win flat bet.

 

Bago did the same thing as Turbo to show just how easy it is to rank at the top. All you need to do it keep resetting like Turbo does. (55 times!) That's why pretend mode play simulations are really just fantasy land.

 

You should know why that can't be done right now.

 

Not sure why you're fixated on your truth table example, which has nothing to do with my post. I guess I shouldn't have used an example of a coin flip, which seems to have confused you. So I'll refer to your claim in the other thread:

For readers who haven't seen that thread, TwoUp applied the binomial distribution to calculate that in 69 spins, the chance of at least 2 hits of a single number is :

Cumulative probability: P(X > 2) = 0.55906013504 (nearly 56%)

He then concluded that this means you will win at least twice in 69 spins with a probability of greater than 50%. YES! you saw it here first folks, the search is over -- this is your holy grail!

Now common sense should tell you there's something wrong here. The mistake is not understanding what P(X > 2) actually means. It's just shorthand for saying that either you will get 2 hits in 69 spins, or 3 hits or 4 hits... all the way up to 69 hits. These outcomes are mutually exclusive, meaning that if one of them occurs, the others won't. Obviously this is true (if you get 2 hits you can't also get 3, and if you get 4 hits you can't also get 5, etc).

For mutually exclusive outcomes, you add up each of the separate probabilities, so P(X > 2) means P(X=2) + P(X=3) + P(X=4) + ... all the way up to P(X=69). That's why the answer comes to 56%. But only ONE of these outcomes can occur, and the most likely outcome is that you get 2 hits (obviously, to get 3 or more hits is less likely than 2).

And the probability that you get 2 hits in 69 spins is 27.3%. So, no edge in your favour, then.

Even if you haven't completely understood the above explanation (I have assumed some familiarity with probability), it should be obvious that you can't generate a positive output (expectation) if your input is a negative expectation, namely 0.027. You can't get something for less than nothing.

 

No you are wrong again. At least 2 means 2 or more, and does not exclude more than 2 like you did when you got the math wrong. You can't save face now with nonsense. You're the one who needs to be careful when using probability as you're grasping at stuff you barely comprehend.

Again 3 flips of a coin has 8 possible sequences and makes it VERY EASY TO SEE THAT YOU ARE WRONG.

HHH
HHT
HTH
HTT
THH
THT
TTH
TTT

A distribution count simply counts possible occurances and their probability.

As we can see there are 3 lines which have EXACTLY 1 head. And there are 3 lines which have EXACTLY 1 tail. This probability is therefore 3/8 for either outcome heads or tails and they are not mutually exclusive. Bet either way.

There are 7 sequences which have AT LEAST 1 head, where "at least" means 1 or more. It can be seen there are 7 sequences that have AT LEAST 1 tail. This probabilty is 7/8 for either outcome heads or tails and they are not mutually exclusive events. Bet either way. MJ says they are. Look and see that both probabilities are valid for 3 flips of a coin as we see 7/8 lines have at least 1 head, and 7/8 have at least 1 tail. This makes sense at 6 of the lines satisfy betting on either heads or tails to get at least one hit. Again plain as day but it's being argued against by MJ.

So you see that EXACTLY one occurance of a head (or a tail) has lower probability (only 3 possible lines or 3/8) vs AT LEAST (1 or more), because 1 or more does not exclude the lines that have more than 1 occurance, whilst EXACTLY 1 has to exclude those possibilities. MJ wants you believe that the lines with more than head (or tail) are somehow not there with his load of nonsense.

It's very easy to see above he is wrong, even a child can do this counting cats and dogs but it escapes MJ.

@Median Joe, why not write out your probabilty calculations against the truth table and show us where we are all wrong.

 

I have to agree here with you it is indeed 7/8 chance you get at least 1 head or 1 tail. But like I showed before it wont give you an edge. The one sequence that is showing 1/8 is killing you gains and you are at zero. (no including the house edge ofcourse)

 

@TwoUp , what is the idea behind knowing the extent of possible worst and best cases? No doubt it's needed to identify the limits of our own system, but how can someone come up with an idea based on this knowledge only? Again, a critical element is missing, which I don't even what it is. To be clear, I'm asking for an initiative idea, a new path to explore.

 

@ TwoUp, sorry, you're just not understanding. This has NOTHING to do with truth tables, but is about the meaning of the cumulative distribution P(X >= x), where x could be any number. What does it mean to you? Look it up in any probability text.

 

Regarding your truth table, there are 8 outcomes and they are mutually exclusive. If you see HHH, then obviously it's not HTH. Same for any other row.

 

This won't lose! just give turbo the time to explain the method before you judge it.
You gotta give the man some slack guys!
Sleepers are the way to go and the road to riches.
Forget about repeaters, playing this for over 2.5 years now and haven't lost since.

 

I have said previously I use it to understand limits and for analysis purposes. Expectations of number of hits or misses in X spins and the probabilities of those events are useful in worst case analysis.

The math actually shows that betting up to 26 spins is +ev and 50.95% to make 8 units. It also shows that betting up to 69 spins is also +ev because AT LEAST 2 hits is 55.96% and at least 2 hits in 69 spins returns a profit. This is flat betting.

Has anyone ever provided that insight on here or another forum? It's just a Binomial distribution calculation away to confirm it for yourself.

So I disagree it doesn't give an edge. The math provides answers. We have a better than 50/50 chance to make a profit by the way we bet and I provided the steps to compute both the cummulative losses and wins for anyone to verify it for themselves.

It's not my opinion, it's what the math says when you understand and look carefully, and I encourage everyone to do that and don't believe what I'm saying. Get an understanding of the math and verify in excel. It's not that hard.

Yes that math is an inconvenient truth to the rabble but it's right there to be calculated and verified. I laid it out.

MJ "I can't do math" has tried to limit the probability to exactly 2 hits and exclude all sequences of spins that have more than 2 wins because he finds the math inconvenient and embarrassing to his established and WRONG position. This is what corrupt casino cheats do, they have no integrity, they like to confuse, distract and obfuscate as being devious is both natural and essential to them as they break the law and don't want to be caught.

Both MJ and Sir AA also can't accept they are wrong because they enjoy bashing on anyone and everyone who's not watching wobbly wheels.

They are shady characters involved in criminal activity cheating in casinos. That's the low level of integrity I'm up against in these forums as they try every devious means to twist what is written.

They are also suffering cognitive dissonance because they believe they are ex-spurts in math, but in reality they continue to push gross errors of fact, they don't understand the nature of probability or variance, and can't even understand how house edge is paid.

MJ's argument about house edge being paid on a loss and past sessions magically cursing future sessions was the pivotal moment he lost face. The rest is trying to recover from that. Damage control.

Before the rabble were saying there was too many pockets, now the rabble are saying its too many wins and spins. It's beyond farcical the straws they clutch at.