Roulette Einstein and roulette - quotation marks don't make it true.

Turbo is this that old system when u add the numbers as they hit ,I remember that one

 

Turbo,

Again, I know your system. Your method relies on hot numbers having hit X number of times above expectation within a horizon Y, as well as an up as you lose progression to cover the losses.

In order for this to be effective, a number that has already hit once has to be more likely to hit a second time....and... a number that has not hit at all has to be less likely to hit. Unfortunately in the random game there's no logic to support this line of thinking. Perhaps you can put forth a logic argument for it? Why do you believe that a number that has hit is more likely to hit over the next series of spins???

Dazzle me with your supposed high IQ.

 

I've already replied to that.

 

Sorry Turbo,

But you're ducking and diving. I'm not one of the flat earth followers and this isn't Dodgeball. Your word salad above doesn't address the question.


Why do you believe that a number that has hit is more likely to hit over the next series of spins than a number that has not hit at all???

 

Honed down to a specific question perfectly, because, anyone who knows anything about the maths of roulette would love to know that.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

Turbos rule that we do not use past spins makes it hard to determine what is hot, cold or warm.

If you jump in at a point and dont consider past spins, then what is cold?. Its only cold if you back track to see when it last came out

I really dont understand how you come to the table and dont use past spins, then determine the above quote. The number that just hit could sleep for 600 spins. There is no maths that says it may not. The number that just hit is in the pool of possible numbers that will sleep for as long as random likes IMO

The number that came out could have been in the pool of possible numbers that will sleep, but how would you know. You dont use past spins.

That really needs explaining to me before we move on.

 

It completely does, you fail to comprehend the answer.
So one more time, then I'm done trying to explain it. Perhaps you're just skimming my post and then looking for a gif to post and not even stopping to think about it. If you goal is just to be combative against anything I say, then you're wasting my time. But here it is again in another form.

You sit at the table - past spins are useless and mean nothing. Here we are.
I ask you to tell me what number is going to appear - you have no idea, of course - how could you.
Now the ball lands on #10.
I ask you what number is going to be a long term sleeper during this session - you laugh and say
"obviously not 10 - it just showed up".
I ask you what number is going to be a repeater and you'd probably laugh again and say "I have no
idea, but 10 is the only possible option at this point".

See - you already know that when a number repeats, 10 is a possible winner while none of the others are
at this point. Surely a number that hasn't appeared once can be a number that repeats - common sense right ?
You also know that when your long session is over - 10 won't be one of the numbers that didn't appear because
you just saw it appear..... common sense.
Maybe...I don't know... think of it this way - instead of trying to bend the spoon (wait, that's a movie)....
instead of trying to figure out what number is going to show 1 time.... because you can't really...
try to figure out which number is going to repeat !!!!!!!!
A number can't show twice unless it's appeared once.
It can't show three times unless it's shown up twice.
repeat as needed.

I'll still let you use paper and a pencil
This logic test should take 1 minute to complete or less.
Please don't ask me to explain it again, I won't reply to it.

 

No you didn't answer.

Wow, this is weird. To what question are you responding???

A...no. I don't see what this has to do with my question.

Weird. Just weird! It's like you're eating mushrooms and then responding to questions that you imagine people are asking you, but they're really not.

Let me try rewording the question.
Your system attempts to exploit hot numbers in the random game. Right?
(You don't bet on a number until it hits.)

So how does the probability of a hot number hitting differ from the probability of cold hitting over the next series of spins if it's a RANDOM GAME?

 

I'm done playing your game.

 

Sorry if the questions are just too tough for you.

How does the probability of a hot number hitting differ from the probability of a cold number hitting over the next series of spins if it's a RANDOM GAME?

Why do you believe that a number that has hit is more likely to hit over the next series of spins than a number that has not hit at all???

 

Turbo, I'm building a program that allows me to rapidly learn the results of hot number/sleeper guessing. I'm combining my knowledge that I learned with Spike and his educated guessing techniques, that became my educated guessing techniques. Before Spike I set out to find the best hottest three numbers. That's where Mr J is now. I'm an expert on 24 number betting. But I noticed something about the hot and cold numbers that I never put together before. This new software I'm building will train me to go into a casino with only a few index cards and continuously sort out the hottest active numbers. That's because it will once again be an acquired skill based on other skills already mastered. The software should confirm the math that you talk about. I never figured out what people where trying to tell me about what you are doing. I really doubt that you gave anyone step by step instructions. I don't need them.

Hey Snowman? Why don't you know what numbers, slots on the wheel, do about every 450 spins? I'm talking about real random wheels not defective wheels. You make yourself out to be an idiot when you don't know this basic thing. I asked you more than 11 years ago. You still don't know. If you did you would not ask these same dumb questions. I think if you did know, then your questions would be far more difficult to answer. But this same old tired crap makes you look ridiculous. I think you want to play it safe and ask dumb questions. What's up with that?

You just asked: "Why do you believe that a number that has hit is more likely to hit over the next series of spins than a number that has not hit at all???"

If you knew what typically happens every 300 to 450 spins then you would know the answer. ... Try it this way. It is impossible for a number that has already hit in your session to be a never-hit sleeping-number in your entire session. Now the intelligent question, that you requested, is that true or is it not true? I have done this with you before. I have walked you through, step by step, so that you can see logic. Only you revert back to your mantra. So my advice to Turbo is to ignore you. That is because you never let anyone explain anything to you, and then complain that they won't explain anything to you. Until you are no longer a defective wheel you are not worthy.

 

What math??? LOL!!! He speaks in oxymorons, never math!

FYI...A number that has just hit may not hit at all during the next 300 or 400 spins. So betting that one hit number could cost you a fortune when it suddenly turns cold. In the random game a cold number is just as likely as a hot number to sleep during the next 300 spins.

 

I noticed what you did with that circular logic and avoiding the question. You never answered my simple question even though you quoted the premise of the question. You just asked another question. So answer my question to prove you can have an intelligent conversation as you requested. Is it true or is it not true?

 

Perhaps you should ask a better question. Try being articulate for a change. Ask an intelligent question and perhaps you'll get an intelligent answer.

 

Well to be fair to TG I don't think he's trying to make a case for this at all. I think he's just trying to say that RANDOM game or not, statistically there are enough repeats to make his system work. But it does come across as inconsistent when he agrees that spins are independent but at the same time it "seems" as though he's denying this because he does have to identify (from past spins) those numbers which are POTENTIAL repeaters. There's no avoiding this, but it doesn't necessarily mean he's committing gambler's fallacy (or reverse gambler's fallacy).

 

What's your IQ?

Did you know that you didn't answer the original question? You sound like a child that says "I know you are but what am I?" Answer the question. Is it true or is it not true?

 

Turbo....I get your quoted reply...I do.
So we are talking about personal permenanze (I can never spell that one)
If so...in theory...in a casino of 10 tables you could move tables each spin and still play your idea.
I know its not practical because each table has its own chips etc. But each spin is random so thats the requirement

 

Exactly. It's almost as if it's just trolling.

Exactly. I made it clear in other posts that at the end of the session I win - and most of the time I'm not even playing the best possible numbers - or the numbers that were the hottest or appeared the most. Of the top 10 I'm typically on a few of them and getting wins. There's no way to predict it perfectly but it doesn't have to be perfect or anywhere near perfect in order to win every time. In my "38 people go into a casino" thread - 13 people won flat betting their own number over a large number of spins. All anyone needs to think on is how to be one of those 13 people - it's not hard when the game is playing out and you can choose what to play.

Spins contained in the session I am playing aren't past spins. I don't use past spins (what's happened before I started playing) for anything. I do use spins that have appeared during my session.

I could yes, or any other way so long as the outcome is random. Now if someone hand picks spins and fuses them together like Frankenstein, then no. That's why sites that use actual spins are suspect because their "list" or actual spins are combined in any way they see fit and removes random from the calculation. That's no longer random. I could find 20 reds in a row and another set of spins with 17 reds in a row and fix them together - that doesn't mean 37 reds in a row just happened randomly.
So there needs to be a random outcome in order for what I do to work, and that's what the wheel at any table - or rng gives me.

 

And.....I do want to discuss with an open mind....not one upmanship and fukin meaningless animated gifs

 

Sorry, but that's just stupid. Typical roulette system flat earth nonsense.


Turbo,

I asked you perfectly sound logical questions, countless times. Yet the best you can manage is the typical oxymoron nonsense found on the flat earth roulette forums.

Above is a good example. "All anyone needs to think on is how to be one of those 13 people ." It may make Turner and the other flat earthers giddy with excitement and weak in the knees, but to everyone else it's just hypnotically stupid! Now all you need to do is name it something retarded like the KFC or KTF!

 

"Math beats a math game."

"I can win because I'm guaranteed to lose."

"I can increase accuracy of prediction when spins are completely unpredictable."

"Random has limits."

"All anyone needs to think on is how to be one of those 13 people."



Theater of the absurd. Nursery rhymes make more sense than that BS that you post. There's a reason other gambling and math forums make fun of and ridicule roulette system forums.