TurboGenius Gambler's Fallacy (absurd ?) Proof.

TG did on Parx, then rsim but they say where are the charts, cherry picked, photoshopped charts, charts don't prove anything, rsim don't pay, Steve's "go make your millions". Lol

 

Where is this amazing demonstration you speak of?

 

What you mean by this "catch up" ?
Main is that "1 in 37 on average" is - loss !!!
Win starts from 1 in 35...
Show us, that can guess 1 in 35 or better and no more pretensions...not need even explain, how you that do !

 

Where?

Rsim ranks by bank balance.

Winrate is all that truly matters. The accuracy of the prediction is the most important thing.

 

This guy and MJ is the best, show us so we can test it. Lmao!

Or else MJ is posting his proof here. Rotfl!

 

You guys are really funny providing the entertainment. Lol

 

Yes, I'm getting ready to go bat shit crazy at the casinos. The money I take and pay taxes on will make a big enough noise in the world that you will eventually hear it. So in effect I'm hoping you will wait until it's too late.

 

Yep, posted. See the new thread : "More proof of Turbo's fallacy"

 

I am not competing with you and your method so good luck, I am in my own lane.

But you have spent a long time talking about this amazing method so it will be great if you can actually show the world your genius.

 

Of course you like only bla-bla-bla. To talk we all can, learned that many years back...with proving something appears problems...

 

I have one final thing for you.

Instead of wasting your time trying to prove what doesn't work which everyone knows that.

Better to use your time and talent to seek outside what you already know don't work. The answer can't be in the place that everyone knows don't work.

And, for the last time, those who know won't tell.

 

Everyone except Turbo, apparently. Of course your trump card is "those who know won't tell". Pretty cheap victory though, and it's getting very boring.

 

You are showing your stupidity or you're provoking for handouts. Try harder.

 

I dont even want to know! They may keep it all by them selves! Good luck with it and hopefully they get filthy rich and stop! Before the math will slap them in the face.

I'm here only responding on turbos examples, which by now all have proven to be false! (meaning they dont make a difference betting random!)

 

use english

 

Too much demonstration and not enough listening and learning.

 

I keep trying to demonstrate it in simpler and simpler examples so that the
anti-system people will get it - I should know by now that they never will.
It's a waste of my time. I tell myself this but I spend the time doing it anyway.
Maybe others reading will learn something in-between the "who's right, who's wrong".

So I fired up RX (yes, will be told I cherry picked it but literally doing it as I type this...
whatever you want to believe).
I ran off spins until the last number appeared. It was #15 at spin 144 so it is -1.49std fine.
Now I play it. At spin 600 it is +1.20std with 21 appearances.


This is probably a bad example but I post it as it happens.
It went from the worst number appearing right through "expected" and is now
hot. Who knew.
Anyway - hop in the time machine and play it from the start - because past
spins don't matter right ?


Same chart right ? Aside from the hideous drop at the beginning......and the ending
balance being so much worse......and the total drawdown being so much worse.......

So they'll say by waiting it doesn't matter.
+$1,320.00 vs +$780.00 doesn't matter ??
I waited out 144 spins and by doing that and picking that coldest number because
it will catch up doubled my profit. Thanks Fallacy !
On a number that ended up 600 spins at +-0 I would still be in profit because I
didn't lose every single bet and spin that it took to appear the first time.
I don't know how much simpler this can be demonstrated.
I could make make a graph showing the strange up and down cycles of any
number which would mean getting on it at the bottom and winning as it rises,
getting off it when it's done climbing - etc etc etc. The number never has to be
hot to win on.
They still won't listen. Not much else I can do.

 

It can be done manually in RX but for me would be a bit slow.
It's going to range though from a number being hot for 1 spin to probably 500+ spins of it being the leader.
I'm not sure "the average" is going to help much though because if the average ends up being 200 spins
*for example* - there will be plenty of times it was well below that and plenty of times it was above that value.
I don't think it would help in knowing how long to play it.

On the other hand, playing a section and narrowing down the hottest numbers until only one is left
is a great way to target a hot number and not bet on a cold one.
The naysayers will say just because a number was hot doesn't mean it will stay that way.
But other numbers will replace it and it will drop off of the played numbers list you would have.
I would suggest picking a limited section of the table to do this and move on to another section
as time goes on and the main target number stops being hot.
Will demonstrate this on RSim and post the link here. Hope it helps.
If it wins then rest assured I somehow hand picked it to win lol.

 

You need to try harder those are not precog games. I use rsim as a way to practice different methods. I thought you would fall for it your way too easy to predict.

I have demonstrated precog many times. I am 1st on MPR and have been 1st on rsim many times.

We are all still waiting for you and the rest of the system junkies to demonstrate it on an open public game.

 

Lol. Ok.....
practice different methods when you can already magically predict the winning numbers with precognition.
I'm a little too smart to fall for that BS, but whatever makes you feel better.