TurboGenius Gambler's Fallacy (absurd ?) Proof.

& I forgot to mention within the principle above

compounding - which does not relate to increasing the base unit but ..
- to the wide/focused bet interplay & two hits on the same are close by
thus compounding the profits of the first hit with the second

+

2-3 hits to finish - the recovery requiring two or more hits to finish .. as opposed to the attack one, although at the beginning somewhat still interlaced .. I never more than 2-3 hits away to the +1, or previous recovery level .. which can be multiple.

 

You not see , that you talk with himself ? And that is sighn , that hospital waits for you ...

 

No, I post for those interested .. now & way later in time.
Unlike you I don't seek recognition.

Shove your hospital & stupid smiling up you ugly ass.

 

@Benas same or different

 

You wrote this bolded statement. Yet you fail to deduce the edge is so large you don't need large sample testing. Oops the expert coders are not happy. Lol

Do you really understand what you wrote or merely copy and paste?

You just need me to point it to you. Lol

I actually did(by mistake) but no one read it. Lmao!

 

Never heard of the guy. Let me guess, another gypsy?

No it doesn't

 

Reddiamanthe,

Nobody believes such frilly bullshit. You sound like a fruitcake with your descriptions.

 

I keep seeing the word “frilly”.

I have to admit, I have no idea what that word means and had to go to dictionary.com to decipher it aside from context.

“Decorated with frills or similar ornamentation. An item of women’s underwear.”

Am now even more confused.

 

Put it this way, the guy writes like a teenage girl that writes poetry and likely cries while viewing sunsets

 

Morron.

There's plenty of people telling you you're blind.
Not mt place & responsibility to make you see - the whole picture.

Bottom line, no matter what I write .. from you 8I am gonna get the same echo.

& for the last, you're judgement is declined.

 

Meanwhile you write deceiving non-sense .. dressed in sounding smart.

 

Never heard .. not my problem.

 

enjoy the poetry


My play is mainly based on the principles to summarize mentioned in DrTalos & a few additions.
• ≠stop-loss!
• minimum betting
• nominal profit +1 (or coincidentally nearby)
• wide/focused betting
• slight progression
• compounding


≠ stop-loss -- there's no point basing the play on the system that loses even if once in a while
minimum betting -- only bet as much as the game asks for nominal profit
nominal profit -- each game concludes in +1u or nearby, a chain of games makes a session
these two above ensure lowest & any point still recoverable drawdowns + small bankroll requirement
wide/focused -- switching between more numbers & to fewer numbers played per spin after the hit compounding the profits of the first hit with the second
2-3 hits to finish - the recovery requiring two or more hits to finish .. as opposed to the attack one, although at the beginning somewhat still interlaced .. I never more than 2-3 hits away to the +1, or previous recovery level .. which can be multiple.



WHICH DOES WIN CONSISTENTLY BY ITSELF ALREADY


now that I've seen what Turbo showed in the original post of this thread; I am adapting this into my play;

although since I am betting continuously rather than solely tracking for the first bit & starting to bet on an unhit SU number the after + making use of the currently performing (which then some of the unhits take its place instead).

The above is my intuition worded as best as I can for now for my purposes .. & sure will get preciser & cleaner & more refined along the way .. adapted into more commonly used terms that anyone can easily take in, especially withthe support of practical examples. But that ain't of primary concern, it working is.


How you label this & if it qualifies to meet your standards, ain't of my concern.
None of that has any effect on my play &or my life + brings the cash into my pocket.

Now, I am sure you would like to put everything & view it through your model just like fucked up jews assimilate &put everything into their three of life model but .. you're just a guy on a forum who allegedly bases his play on completely different principles & anything that does not fit those has been historically consistently labeled as shit -- DESPITE WHEN IT BEYOND (THE ABILITY) YOUR COMPREHENSION CONSISTENTLY WINS.

 

Sorry, but no. You haven't described anything that will win consistently.

 

✠

I am not here to convince you .. neither reward you.

 

Tbf he's smart to take the position to hide under basic 1/37 probability, extra pocket, unfair payout and independent outcomes which is correct. He can't be wrong that's the safe part.

The error is that's not the complete picture.

1/37 basic probability is not the ONE and ONLY probability for roulette spins.

This means it involve other variables.

Now, whoever make such a claim has to reveal these other variables.

Else it's a nonsense claim.

Some veteran members already join in this chorus calling it magic math.

All these people have the same motive,

Tell us the solution or we jeer you on forum.
That's their provocation strategy.
They do this for more than a decade on anyone who claim their systems bet can win.

Ofc not all these members who has winning systems betting strategy are competent in math to provide a math explanation why their systems strategy win.

So these members are forced to reveal the details of their strategy to substantiate their claim. Ofc they won't.

This does not mean they are lying, wrong testing, wrong coding, not large enough sample size testing, curve-fitting, scammer and the lot of possible errors that discredit the claim.

It may be true in most cases but its not 100% true in all cases of claims. Not everyone make mistakes, not everyone win short term, not everyone are liars and scammer.

The point is the only math cited by SirAnyone, MJ and Benas is statistical significance. That's the only math that they have ever posted on forum.

SirAnyone is so lazy he copy and paste the same lines from his notebook of math. That's why his posts sounds so repetitive.

Why does he do that?

He does not want to make mistakes since he knows his math knowledge is limited. This way of self limited cut and paste posting the basics everytime gives the false impression as if he is the math expert. I already explain why he and his crew are not experts. Far from it.

So, we are left with what this mysterious math claim is.

Nothing mysterious at all.
Nothing sophisticated at all.
No PhD math.
Or as few naysayers try to provoke sophistry math.
None of that.

I wrote clearly above.

Other variables.

Anyone even without much math knowledge with a logical brain must conclude there may be other variables.

What are these other variables from roulette outcomes?

Those who are truly math competent will approach roulette outcomes from this angle to look at the 1/37 basic probability from a another angle of other variables which require deeper math understanding.

Ofc SirAnyone wants to get his hand on this.

I won't be that silly to be provoked to reveal.

Too bad the crowd will have its fair share of pessimism. That's to be expected.

What's important to YOU, the crowd is this premise of naysaying by SirAnyone, MJ and Benas is correct but incomplete. Their citation of basic probability does not spell the death knell for systems betting.

SirAnyone is correct to ask why your systems betting strategy must hit at higher rate than odds. YOU have to try explain to YOURSELF why your systems betting strategy win. Don't get carried away by short term wins. They can be due to luck in many cases.

Tbf to SirAnyone, the response to his question above is not good enough to answer his question.

Those who know are not able to give the complete answer.

SirAnyone, MJ, Benas and veteran members looking for handouts exploit this impasse.

Smart posting strategy.

This is the time wasting, selfish posting strategy by veteran members.

Why would I participate in this posting scam on gambling forums?

You can fool those who are not math competent with your false altruistic intent.

I can take the trouble to post the explanation of your scam posting strategy. Lol

 

That’s well said.

As a player you either believe there are other variables affecting the short term outcome of any given session beyond the payout and pocket count, or you don’t.

AP players obviously cite physical/mechanical variables like out of balance wheels or dealer signature as their foundation for achieving a +EV scenario, but are unwilling to accept that there are circumstances that would allow a player to win consistently even in a -EV environment.

Hiding behind the Law of Large Numbers requirement of thousands of outcomes to have a number that’s behind the EV curve “catch up” is where the core of their argument lies.

Low trial amounts of say 100-500 spins don’t qualify for the Law to be applied in their opinion, hence it’s all just luck/variance when behind numbers do outperform a random sample of numbers over the same span.

But…every time I test a random number versus a significantly “behind” number over a period of 200+ spins, the lagging number outperforms the random number.

And it especially outperforms the random number if said random number has previously hit at higher than a 1/37 rate over the previous 200 spins prior to the both the lagging number and the random number being observed.

So it seems simple to me to see that there is merit to there being “other variables” present within a -EV environment, even if they’re short lived in terms of use to the player.

What am I missing?

 

@DutchCrown
Ok, then our first cycle (in the example with first hit on spin 120) is 121-155.
If no hit in cycle 1, we bet 1 unit on it in the next cycle (155-190). but if hit, we also stay at 1 unit.
From the second cycle, we take into account the following:
-> 1 hit within 1 cycle, we continue with the same bet.
-> more than 1 hit within a cycle, we lower our bet to 1 unit.
-> no hits within a cycle, we raise our bet to 2 units.

but do we never go up from 2 units? That is, our maximum bet for each number is 2 units?

Thanks again!!!

 

Go to that forest you mentioned; it's all in there if you listen

 

Mako, we're not hiding behind anything, and it's not the law of large numbers which is the issue; it's independence of outcomes. That's where the confusion lies. We're not saying that IF you take a large enough samples of spins, then the first sample DOES affect the second sample. Look back at say the last 1000 spins and you see that there is a strong deviation in favour of red. Does this mean that in the next 1000 spins black will make a triumphant comeback? It's irrelevant. Because expectation is constant. The most likely outcome is going to be closer to expectation than not, regardless of what happened before, and whether it's the last 1000 numbers or the last 10. So after this dearth of blacks the next 1000 spins will likely have more blacks, but not because the first 1000 had less; it's simply that the expectation always tends to the average. It SEEMS as though the prior spins have affected the future spins. But you are attributing a cause where there is none. You're confusing a sequence of events with a cause. It's like saying "every time I wash my car, it rains". Obviously washing my car doesn't CAUSE the rain. Gambler's fallacy is in a way a kind of Post Hoc fallacy.

The departure point for systems is always the assumption that past spins DO affect future spins, and everyone is very busy working on the consequences of this assumed truth. But all those systems have no foundation; they are built on sand. It's tragic and at the same time quite comical.

It's so easy to test this for yourself, but not many seem interested in actually doing it. I guess the fascination with systems and the lure of easy money is just too strong. Turbo does post some data and charts but his demonstrations always seem to show a correlation between the spin sequences. I'm not saying it's deliberate cherry-picking, although it might be.