Roulette The horse race analogy and the misinterpretation of data

So here is the data WHY the horse race anology is wrongly interpreted.

First of all these are just the FACTS that I found, I dont want to point fingers and Say see I told you so or anything in that order. We are ALL in this together, and I have much respect for Turbos ideas, he is thinking outside the BOX!

Here is the data.

According to turbo in 11 horse race the winning horse is on average in 6.3 spins. Do I agree with this, Absolutely!

For my test I used 6 horses to make things less confusing the data is same however. Because in my test the winning horse came on in 11.2 spins

Math (11.2 / (6/11) = 6.1 sound about right because I'm using an 1 zero wheel. So the math is the same.


So here is the data for all the horses.

1st place 11.2 spins
2nd place 19.5
3th place 25.8
4th place 37.3
5th place 51.5
6th place 84.3

So not betting on the last horse seems like a pretty good idea!

I tested on how many times a horse would win who was closest to the finish line because that horse had the most potential (turbos logic and I agree.)

1000 races later the following data came in.

50% of the time the horse closest to the finish line came in first!!! (WOW)
19% it came in 2nd place
9.8% it came in 3th place
6.8% it came in 4th place
9.2% it cmae in 5th place
5.2% it came in 6th place

now the following data is for the horse that was on 2nd place from the finish line:

27%
29.4%
14.2%
11%
8.6%
9.8%

3th 4th 5th 6th


15.4 5.2 2.4 0
25.2 15 9.2 2.2
26.4 27.4 15 7.2
13.6 23.4 26 19.2
10.6 17 26.8 27.8
8.8 12 20.6 43.6

As we can see the last horse closest to the finish line came in last 43.6 of the time. (this good data)

So now combine all data

1000 races

Horse nr 1 closest to the finish line wil win 500 races on average 500 X (36-11.2) = 12.400
190 x (36 - 19.5) = 3.313
98 x (36 - 25.8) = 999
68 x (36 - 37.3) = -88.4
92 x ( 36 - 51.5) = - 1426
52 x (36 - 84.3) = -2511

Combined result of JUST PLAYING HORSE 1 = 12687 units!!!! (Roughly 12.5 units per race!!!)

So EUREKA by just playing horse 1 we would always win! (This is exactly what turbo told us earlier once the first horse is closest to the finish line, play that horse alone and retrack! It made completly sense now!)

So I started playing in RX

It failed misserably it came down to 1:37 after playing 100 races or so, why???????? The data was right not?????

So I started to program again...

No I tested how each horse came out INDIFIDUALY each race, what do I mean by this, see how many spins each race lasted for the nr1 horse closest to the finish line (i used the same data from above.)

The Data tested again.

50% it came in 1st place
19% it came in 2nd place
9.8% it came in 3th place
6.8% it came in 4th place
9.2% it cmae in 5th place
5.2% it came in 6th place

So that was correct HOWEVER!

this was the data how many spins the race took

13.9
34.7
49.8
70.9
81.2
141.5

the data was tottally different than

11.2
19.5
25.8
37.3
51.5
84.3

Calculated results in units.

11035
250
-1349
-2371
-4161
-5483

Total loss -2080 units of 1000 races

So WHAT HAPPEND!?!

You see the data of the 11.2 spins on average was the COMBINED result of all the 6 horses finishing first place. You see when the first horse closest to the finish line came in last, it took a hell of a lot MORE spins to finish last than the 6th horse finishing last.

Now dont that start thinking that betting all horses closest to finish line will make a difference (like turbo said suggested) you lose even more money...

MORAL of the STORY is

DONT START BETTING IN REAL LIFE BEFORE YOU PROGRAMMED IT OR TESTED IT FOR 100.000 PLAYED SPINS!!!

 

Sorry everyone, wish i could disagree but sadly these are the same results i got after testing this bigtime.
We are all here to win money, but unless someone can prove there is a way yo make sure yout always in profit at the end of any given session, i'm done playing roulette for real money anymore. Turbo is a great guy and has contributed alot to the roulette forums, and i'm greatful towards him for letting me see the game in a different way. But at the end of the we are want to make money, and more and more i realise, that always winning just isn't possible in this game. Hope someday i will be proven wrong.
But i lost too much money and more searching for this dream.

 

Gents. Can I remind everyone that both the horse race and the time traveller posts are just analogies. Everyone is acting like TG has posted a system for you that can be played as a winner every time. You know thats not going to happen.

So yes they are being wrongly interpreted because they are being taken at face value and used like some kind of HG!

Come on.

 

it's about time, that everyone will stop posting methods, systems that won't make money. Casino's won't close when a couple of gents will play a winning system spread around the globe. Aren't we here trying to find a way to make money playing roulette? if you say no, then you are lying. Better to make some money together while we can. Before you know it, we are too old to do this or dead. Let turbo spit it out, let us decide if it's worth playing or not.

 

Haha! Of course everyone wants to make money playing it! Why would I say otherwise. Listen, I feel your pain. I've lost plenty too. I've been down the same road as many of us. But I wasn't just looking for profit. A lot of the joy of it was finding stuff out that I didn't realise before and using it to some advantage of course.

One thing Ive realised over the years that 90% of the time my losses have happened because of myself and not because of any house edge. I've pushed too far too soon in terms of money management and not resetting my play. And not to mention the danger of online play being the temptation and ease of clicking just one more spin!

When I have won it has taken time and patience. And ultimately Ive been in positions where Ive done rather well. All too often Ive lost sight of the system and money management. And in these moments (as I'm sure you know all to well) days and weeks have hard gains can be gone in an instant.

 

So these analogies aren't posted or professed as winning systems but a way to rethink your play I would say.
And as to whether a system that is posted can be a winning system or not; I think that can be down to both the idea presented and the execution of that method by the player.

 

And finally I do agree I'd like to land on the most 'consistent' method I can before I croak it LOL!
Turbo – promise us all - the day your knocking on deaths door (which I hope is a long way off!) you'll leak a few more 'keys' to your methods before they're gone forever! Hahaha! (Im laughing out loud honestly I am! )

 

Umm I thing you are mistaken here.
He did post a system in the same thread with the time machine analogy.
He explained it very poorly hence the whole.. Confusion.

 

Yea TG posted a system but not a HG. The system is there to explore... For you or I to say "what if I did this?".

 

Ha yes yes. That’s one of his old ones. And one that makes complete sense really. I didn’t see the confusion. But like Bit said. It’s not an HG. But rather it explains the analogy with the method. That’s how I took it anyway.

What I’d be thinking now is how do I apply this thinking to my standard repeater play that doesn’t have to place all those chips every time! But still allows me to profit using a group of numbers placed over the session. And I’m not looking to be on the winner at the finishing line either! Just to be in profit at the end of my session. (If I set myself a finishing line I know I can end up with several horses vying for that place). Most people seem to think you have to bet on the lead horse or horses to get past that fixed point or spin count. You don’t.

 

Already taken care of lol.
But you know I encoded all information and step by step instruction into a secret
file that is uploaded. I'll have to tell the doctor to make a post for me if and when that day comes lol.

Then everyone can say "Oh great, he posted the HG in a riddle like always and no one can figure out
how to get to it !" lol.
(laughs from the grave)

 

Now, this i can't understand. Can you explain what you mean please?

When i play a horse race with a six hit as a finishline, i play the one that has 5 hits, wich has the most chance to hit that line before the rest (in theory). But the problem always was/is that there can be in theory 37 horses fighting for that first place. You will most of the time end up betting way too many horses to be in profit, once the first 5 hitter becomes a 6.

 

No Fossell if you read all threads, turbo said himself he played this system (6 horse anology) every weekend at parx! NOW Of Course with differents chosen numbers! Like he said the KEY was the last number in the set.

NOW

I already have PROVEN that the sub system of the 6 horse race analogy (wich turbo used like he said) does not change one iota it is 1:37 always.

SO

Logic if a syb system does not CHANGE the outcome, then what ever you FEED into the system will not change either! So the only LOGICAL conclusion is that what ever you feed into the system already has to have an advantage! So use that advantage in the first play dont WAIST time with the sub system!

Now most people still dont grasp this logic...

 

Sorry Eddy. I'll be a bit clearer. I just mean I don't play the way this analogy plays out. I don't start my session thinking, right my finish line is the first to get to 6,7 or 8 repeats. I certainly don't wait for a number to get to 6 or 7 first then start playing it with the belief it will be the first to get to 8!!!

Its commons knowledge and sense (I hope) that plenty of numbers can get that point before one passes that line (like you said).

I suppose I used to think that way. But now my finish line would not be a spin count but a measure of profit over my starting balance.
Using a group of numbers that are repeating and have the potential to keep repeating. At some point a number will take the lead and take my progression up just high enough to profit while being supported by a group of other repeaters.

I don't know the best way, like everyone else.

 

Hi. Sorry I've not seen or read that so I might be wrong.

 

And you don't see the advantage here slapping everyone right in the face ?

 

That's because I never said that I played that "every weekend at Parx".

It's great when people can't even quote you right and then twist it into what it wasn't.
Maybe it's easier than finding the actual quote.
"every weekend" lol.
Ok there Ka2.
Please refresh my memory on that one too.

 

Turbo,

Why do you suppose it is that everyone that speaks fluent English have lost money playing your system, but the people that can't speak English well claim to win with it?

https://media1.giphy.com/media/tCIcbmzePzxqo/giphy.gif

 

No idea, I don't put people into groups based on how well their English it.
I understand almost all people perfectly fine no matter what language they use.

 

No, in theory & in practice you have 12 single streets/lines & 11 double streets ..
since double streets share common lines - really what really remains is "6"


what would be an interesting take is
if you simultaneously run count for the 2x&plus repeaters [deeper into 37n cycles]

combining 'horse analogy' method 'fulfilling numbers' with those 'repeaters'
further eliminating & keeping only those numbers most probable 'to both simultaneously'
combining them into most probable bet result


why not test this out