TurboGenius When does it lose ?

Its is possible to continue...
All arguings are too hard and looks that participants not understand main idea about what is argued ...
Can you write in one or two sentences object where he is not right and where you are right ?
If not , then all this arguing not have sense...

 

There is no way at a table to do this which is why I did it dozen by dozen.
1+2+4+8 on all 3 dozens would be 12 bets and 45 chips being put on the table in the limited time between
spins happen. There's no way to do this physically - at a terminal or online it could be done but not with
chips at a table. I figured keeping each dozen as it's own section and doing them one at a time would be
easier to get the chips down on 4 numbers that are all pretty close together on the table.

 

very playable at EGT ed!
at holland casino we have approx 1 min between spins.
and with the use of a sheet as in my example it's simple really.

 

@ Turbo, so what was the final profit?

 

I also posted how I played it.
Everyone was too busy arguing about who was right to notice the post.

 

Exactly, so much "spam" in this thread hard to keep up with valuable info

 

Good post Turbo!!
It would be nice if Rsim allowed to download the permanences in txt format. In this way we could repeat the permanence with some of the proposed modifications and contrast results.

Thanks.

 

I explained myself clearly in my original posts on regression to the mean, even included some graphs.

I also provided a rebuttal to sir AAs "reinterpretation" of what I wrote into some self serving meme which is a common tactic for him. He's your buddy so maybe you can ask him directly what he's on about.

If you have a question about the regression concept then ask away.

 

I can, but I that not need because what he say for me looks simple and clear.
Simply point is that I not understand how at all all arguings can be solved in forum. Even if i will claim, that 2+2=5 how you can prove, that me - not right ? I think that will be quite hard ...
I not folow what you talked in 23 pages, because not realy clear aim, but i tried to read some sentences :

Can you say what that mean and which benefit that can give in play ? In my opinnion here talk is about disperssion , but disperssion cannot be controlled... so the same cant be usefull...

 

I think because turbo have a good will to help people although he get a lot of negative comment.

If i am turbo i think i dont have a patience like he does.

So i just can give my respect to people who want to help although the naysayer give negative comment

Salute for all of you who give positive input like turbo, luckyfella, twoup, mako, TRD, and someone else that i dont mention one by one.

Thanks from the bottom of my heart

 

The last part of your thoughts actually resembles the hot number tactic where you suggested raising units on it being hot.
When you put it in dozen context , you are actually using 36 numbers as the pool.

So the further away from the mean, the better the chances of it appearing.

However one can end up with a long term sleeper which is expensive in terms of units and hopefully can come into profit using the other numbers.

 

This is what I thought when I read TG's post. It's more accurate this way: The further away from the mean, the better the chances of it REPEATING BACK TO BACK.

Again, there is a problem with false alarms. One hit doesn't always mean it's time to bet. I brought this topic up a few pages back. Also, I did a test on how long it takes to see all numbers performing at 1/37 at least once. Sometimes, you might need to wait up to 200k spins. It would be very sad if your number is the last number to catch up, playing $20 each spin

 

sincere question: What if you started at the 26000 mark, you would be 15000 down the hole? I know you say not to play it but this strategy doenst look like a good one.

 

Im willing to test this.

Question though:

If a number sleeps for 1000 spins would you say this number is a better contender than a random number? Because of the regression

 

Really 200k wow but this also means other numbers are performing better during that period

 

True, but you can't rely on this idea, because sometimes it takes 300 spins to experience this event. You can't bet on both events, since they sum up to all numbers. It's like playing for AND against repeats in a 37-spin cycle at the same time. It's not possible (although Dyksexlic wouldn't agree on this with me lol).

 

Shank, Ka and readers,

Let's address the core issue by using our logic,

Since TurboGenius bet is based on the assumption that there's an orderly limit to the variance, the question then is is there evidence that support such an assumption?

My gut and logic tells me why must random spins follow this orderliness?

The answer in this particular scenario has to be no.

For rtm to work there must be orderly limit whose probability count is better than payout to exploit.

This is the key criteria for rtm to work.

Now if this anomaly is obvious someone would have stumbled upon it after so much testing work done.

 

More testing will not tell you more than you already know.

Even gut and logic tell there's no basis why this sleepers count must comform to some orderly limit.

200 years people have searched, tested, theoretically rationalise this aspect, can't find anything.

Do you think your testing can return a result that's different?

I wrote CLEARLY, UNAMBIGUOUSLY, you require to do more brain work.

Why must whatever "limit" follow an orderly form?

Sleeper is the "limit" EVERYONE understand. It's so obvious.

Are there any other "limit" to check?
Applying logic, this has to be the area to check, isn't it?

It has to be a limit that's so obtuse that Tom, dick and Harry can't see it.

Don't forget, the math professors are also searching.

So do you think there exist this anomaly lay hidden in randomness that demonstrate this orderliness?

If the answer is yes, it has to be math based.

Do you think you have this level of understanding math that you understand randomness to the level that you can recognise this anomaly as it manifest itself in the permutation of randomness?

Therefore isn't it easier and realistic to say this anomaly doesn't exist since most of you can't run 10 seconds 100m?

 

Ok but it's weird though is it not? First advocating waiting for past spins is the silliest thing to do, and here he says the exact opposite?

 

So am I a naysayer?

Ofc HUGE YES.

But I don't post on forum to bash believers up.

Allow believers to bang their heads the wall for the next 200years if it takes them that long to learn. Why make it my business?

And why are you, so-called naysayer doing all that coding work expecting a magical result that's different?

Why are you naysayer, expecting TurboGenius explanation to be magical?

Are you a true naysayer who truly understand the math or a half past six naysayer who is still hopeful there might be hidden secret sauce, so you keep coding, testing hotties and sleepers?

Wake up people, believers and naysayers alike, as I always wrote, read my posts CAREFULLY.

I don't apply rtm strategy.

Or at least I don't exploit rtm in the context of your understanding.