Roulette @Jerome - The Turbo Paradox

the reason so many people believe in tautologous systems is the power of the English language
words are so very powerful

these are some of the words and phrases used over and over again to falsely imply a system is a winner:

quit while you are ahead
hit and run
keep your losses small and your wins big
manage your money well
leave the table with a win
the trend is your friend
bet the numbers that are hot
look for a hot table or a hot dealer
leave the table if the dealer is cold
bet more when you are winning
if you are having a losing day come back to try on a different day
this is my favorite: if you are winning you are playing with the house's money


some of these words and sayings may have some value for an amateur gambler


but none of them will make you a long run winner

 

I had to look up what "Tautologous" meant, was it just me?

Fully agree though.

 

Nice post Half Smoke. Just because something sounds great and has been accepted as a catchphrase doesn't make it true.
Not that all catchphrases are baseless of course, but many are just useless gambling rhetoric that give people a cozy false sense of security.

 

Well that was a long rant. Great rhetoric but poor logic. I'm not trying to "silence" anyone, that's just your paranoia, and sure, new ideas have always been criticized, sometimes deservedly, but it doesn't follow that criticism implies that the ideas will work - that's absurd. I call it the "Wright brothers fallacy" : the merit of an idea is directly proportional to the number of people who criticize it. Therefore, if an idea is widely trashed, it's probably a good one.

But even if it wasn't a fallacy, it wouldn't give evidence that any particular idea had merit; only tangible proof or demonstration that the idea works can provide that. It's all very well playing the role of the mad genius and accusing the masses of being narrow minded, defeatist, negative and so on, but it comes across as rather hollow when you haven't actually proved anything. Rather than throw away the principles of probability because you've posted some charts and come top of a leader board, isn't it more likely that your results are entirely within those predicted but you don't realise it? And it's convenient that you choose to ignore my actual empirical data and accuse me of just posting wiki links and generic math.

 

No proof is good enough, no length of chart - no testing is good enough really.
When results are posted there's a drawer full of reasons why it's not legitimate proof.
It's terribly convenient to hold that position.
There's only one option - spell it out step by step or there's no proof....
Even then ! The testing apparatus is rigged perhaps, the actual casino wheel is bias perhaps.
You require a silly 1 + 1 = 3 (which doesn't exist) and ignore that putting other things
in the equation makes it 3. Because it hasn't been explained in detail what that other
part of the equation is, you don't see the 3 as a valid answer ?

That's fine. The simple road to take is pointing to "All the experts throughout history have
proved it" or "empirical data demonstrates I'm right" etc etc. There's no effort in trying to
defeat a monster that you don't understand how to defeat and everyone has told you
it can't be beaten anyway - so why bother ?
That's the point of my post - not once in history has something "impossible" been achieved
by anyone who thought this way. And were talking 2.7% here - not Mankind walking on the
moon. This is something someone should have defeated a long time ago.

 

So, I believe there are multiple ways to win at this game. But, here’s a question for you. Let’s say we come across a wobbly wheel, one that has a good enough bias that would allow Caleb to come in and rape the casino. While he’s doing that, is it possible, at the same time, for Turbo’s strategy using minimal interval and the math beats a math game to close the casino as well? It’s obvious that the wobbly wheel strategy requires a bias, but do your strategies work regardless of any wheel bias? Does it change the ‘math’ of the game?

 

No, turbo would be playing the short term random game. The odds that he could detect the true biased numbers are slim at best. I can post some streams for examples if you'd like.
I know it seems confusing but it's because most people, Turbo included, have never tracked more than a few hundred spins from any one wheel.

 

I suppose what I’m wondering is that if a bias in a wheel exists, does it skew randomness?

 

Yes

 

Yes, and those reasons are legitimate. I've asked you more than once to give detailed data about your results and you can't (or won't) even do that, even though you wouldn't be giving anything away in terms of the bet selection. A cynic might be inclined to think that you won't do it in case the results are shown to be not significant.

Ultimately, yes. And that's the way it's always been for important discoveries. Something "impossible" has never been proved possible merely by someone asserting that they've done it; it has to be repeated by many others and tested rigorously under all conditions. Since the nature of this particular impossibility is such that you don't want it to be repeated (otherwise it will no longer be useful) then it seems as though you're doomed to having to endure ridicule and insults. Well, that's your choice.

< sigh>. Mankind walking on the moon, the Wright brothers, and many other "impossibilities" were engineering problems, and when the technology was ripe enough the problems were solved. However, roulette has been around for 100s of years and the "technology" you're proposing to solve the problem was known when the game was invented (in fact, if it hadn't been known, the game wouldn't have been invented as a way to make money for the house).

 

Sounds good but -

There are currently 5,784 patents that are "secret".
Inventions where the details are not released to the public.
That means the creators do not intend to have all of the details
of their creation spilled out onto the table for whatever reason.
Of course you can say they are all "nonsense" since you can't
replicate their results as in this case - fine.
< yawn >

So no "game" was ever changed because someone found a way to beat it ?
I'm sorry but there are tons of examples of this (also throughout history).
At this point no one (no one who matters) cares if it can be beaten or not -
99% of players play randomly all over the table or use their "lucky" numbers.
Players that do win via cheating are usually detected and dealt with.

 

I don't say they are all nonsense - how could I know? But how many of those who submitted such patents spend time on internet forums trying to help others to find (using hints and clues) what they don't want to be known!? I guess I'm just puzzled as to your motivation? Step by step instructions (the algorithm) will never be forthcoming and anyone who asks for confirmation that their system inspired by your clues is the right one WON'T have it confirmed. It just seems like a pointless exercise to me, but whatever floats your boat.

Sure, Blackjack is the obvious example, and it's often used against the "naysayers". But BJ is NOT a game of independent trials. Strictly speaking, Baccarat isn't either, but it turns out that it might as well be from the point of view of getting an edge by knowing what cards have been dealt. Your theory is predicated on outcomes NOT being independent; so you need show just one instance of this being the case in the random game. Unfortunately there is lot of confusion and misunderstanding about independence, so you hear things like "if the law of the third is true, how can outcomes be independent?".