TurboGenius Here we go again

That's the Nash equilibrium, John Nash Jr is a hero of mine (I don't have many).
He received the Novel prize in Economics in 1994 for his part in Game Theory and what
he helped create is being used all over the world.
Sadly he suffered from Paranoid schizophrenia but still managed to change the world and
never let it stop him, coming up with many important contributions.
Also Sadly he died along with his wife in 2015 not far from me from a car accident.

 

@TurboGenius Ta. I've seen a clip of his from a movie a while ago. Besides the obvious of using more numbers, even numbers grouped inti the positions to 'together work securing a better whole =adjusted risk & according to that avg cumulative ratio' is there anything else you wanted to point out?

 

I'd love for people to understand random and how it works.
I just ran off 3 samples, anyone can do this.
Boz can tell me how 1 in 16 is so outlandish - but look at the data.
This is a simple race with 12 horses, 3 laps.
So in other words, each number in the street appears at least once for all streets.
I highlighted all of the streets where the player wins. (the wins are better per each number
than the 35 to 1 payout.) There sure is a lot of them. My 1 in 16 win rate is right there
on each one and easily attained. Considering I used a more complex pattern than just each
number in the streets appearing for the opening post in this thread. This is just basic.



This is 90 numbers appearing at better than 1 in 35 - player's advantage
18 numbers appearing below 1 in 35 - house advantage.
Clearly each section is defined.
This was all covered here by me a long time ago - but of course I was met with nonsense replies from
the usual suspects.

 

I'm not really following your table, except that it seems to suggest that this trial was for somewhere between 474 and 2318 spins. Is that right? And if so, you're claiming that a trial of ≤2318 constitutes good evidence that your system works?

 

Turbo working on a new roulette method >>

 

As far as I am aware he's presenting, not systems as a whole, but concepts & principles with additional supporting & clarifying examples and evidence.

What you are calling a system, in this case, is a mere layer or dimension, of which he presented many & some more. Its up to you to either assemble & flatten the multi-layered image &or distill the essence & make/bring'em into your own intended/desired forum.

This ain't a peer-review process & if you wanna prove the above & doesn;t work -- the burden of proof is on your side.

 

You're supposed to be smart, guy...

 

Well, I can't do that unless I understand what he's presenting.

In any event, my evidence that betting systems don't beat the house is that the average of a set of negative-expectation bets can't be positive, and that past results don't influence future results. That's been well-understood for centuries, so I think the onus is on the person claiming otherwise.

Because system-believers don't want to share the recipes for their systems because they don't want others trying to profit from them, I'd suggest that TurboGenius provide a watered-down system that just dents the house edge, but doesn't beat it. E.g., instead of the normal 5.26% in American roulette, shoot for something like 3%. Then programmers could code the system to test it and we could all see the results, and TurboGenius wouldn't have to worry about having revealed his magic beans.

 

This is basically true, at least the part about exhausting yourself in all the phases. It's called paying your dues. Nobody is going to give you anything really good for nothing. You're going to have to work for it. Gizmo has a lot of stuff in his RR thread, but you have to work for it to understand it. Most people don't want that, they want to take 20 minutes of instruction go to the casino and do nothing but win. That doesn't exist.

 

That is about as well known as sunset and sunrise, no need to present evidence. Anybody with half a brain understands that negative expectation bets can never produce positive results. Duh. It's like this. You can be the best person in the world to do the math on the odds of who's going to win the next heavyweight fight. But if your brother-in-law is one of the fighters and he tells you he's going to throw the fight, all your math goes out the window and becomes useless.
When you can figure out what the next outcome will be in any casino game more often than not, your math for that game becomes worthless. The math is now calculated by the guy who has the advantage. But you will never recognize that's even possible because your math background won't let you. Math is your religion and as such you can never be talked into atheism.

 

Of course, because someone is capable of altering the outcome. But in the casino none of us is capable of altering the outcome.

That's like saying that if someone can make 2+2=5, then my math becomes worthless. Sure, but that's a big IF. It's like saying, "If something impossible happens, then blah blah blah." Yeah, but something impossible can't happen.

Gee, where have I heard that before? I've heard it so many times I baked it into my article.

 

Well then let's unpack all that and see if it holds water.

The first part is that the average of a set of negative-expectation bets can't be positive. I have said many times that you can lose the expected number of bets as expected by a negative-expectation game and still beat the casino consistently just about every time you play. You do this by playing the entire gambling session as a single event. If you know when to bet big and when to bet small and use that timing to your advantage then the negative-expectation no longer has any deterministic capacity to force you to lose more money than you make. This holds true as long as you are good at doing it. Math oriented experts need you to bet the same amount all the time in order for you to prove that your method of play works as valid. This method of betting big when you are doing well and betting small when any other condition is happening is as old as casinos.

"past results don't influence future results." I could not agree more. So don't use anything that does not exist to attempt to know the future. Only math oriented players like to assume that you are claiming to know a future that can't be known. No matter what you try to play you can never know the future. Not even in the long run. Math is not magical either. You must lose more times than you win. That is understood by just about every math oriented expert. So you must use that truth to beat that truth. You must become good at knowing when to lose the spins that you must lose in any session. You can know this because sometimes phases of conditions swarm together. A simple example of this could be illustrated by a phase of any session where you get 24 losses and only 8 wins. Anyone that can count and do simple arithmetic can use math to determine any situation that exists like that. You can teach any second or third grader to recognize conditions like that. You are seeing a phase where three times as many bets are lost as bets are won. You can tell when phases like that change to chaos or to the opposite too. You can exploit conditions like that as long as they keep going in those conditions. But to do that you must evaluate the existing conditions on each spin.

So in conclusion you must determine what kind of phase is currently happening and you must act on it. You don't know the future and you do not know when it will change. But that is the true nature of randomness. You don't know when things will happen. But you can confirm for yourself when things change. Some sessions will remain chaotic and without any positive or favorable form. You can't force conditions to change into your favor. You must wait until randomness starts working again for you. There is no existing math that will tell you when things will change in your favor either. So you must be aware of conditions and be able to act with deliberate agility. I've never met a math oriented expert that can prove this strategy does not work, but I think that the onus is on the person claiming otherwise, to quote an expert that claims that he knows.

 

No, that assertion is not only false, it's absurd. This is where I stop reading.

 

Another wov refugee, that ship is sinking and the dross ends up here. I guess they just hitched a ride on the leaking sewer spill.
I’m giving spike a like for his post to that returd, and because I can’t be bothered cut and paste a quote.

 

Yes but we need them to lose , someone has to pay for the infrastructure, be it bricks and mortar or interverse , don’t wise them completely up.

 

Like I said, you're so locked into the math mindset in your world it can't happen. But the rest of us don't live in your world, we live in the real world. I have been messing around with this for 16 years, it's not a big IF at all. Why would I keep doing this if it didn't work. You make no sense Michael Bluejay. We all create our own reality, and the reality you have created for yourself is betraying you. Wake up..

 

I thought it was obvious.
But you can do this yourself - or anyone else. So easy to prove me wrong.
The chart there shows streets where each number has appeared in the street at least once.
How long does it take ?
There are 3 numbers in a street - each at 1:37 and 1:35 or better is needed for a profit.
If you look down the "average" column(s) - where do you see it being more than 35 for
the average ? Everything highlighted is a win for the player.
Here's some spins -
1
18
2
0
32
24
12
3

All 3 numbers in street 1-2-3 have appeared. 8 spins.
The numbers in that street appeared every (8/3) 1 in 2.66 spins.
Not 1 in 37, not 1 in 35 to achieve a profit, but 1 in 2.66
How many in my charts show this better than 1 in 35 ?
30 times of a possible 36

This is where the naysayers say "You can't know that the 3 is coming to end that race !!"
Correct.
But I do know that 1 and 2 have shown and this means 1 step away from completion.
Would I bet on street 4-5-6 that hasn't even appeared once ? Of course not.
I would bet on 3 in this case and I would have won in 5 spins.

This is the simplest example. As you add more variables and add more steps
in the patterns the accuracy becomes more and more profound.
But don't take my word for it.

 

I'm available to code a simulation publicly, both against CPU RNG and casino free-mode RNG.

 

So in theory we could wait for 2 numbers showing in each street or line or whichever pattern you want (find better than this basic one) and bet for it to complete since we know its likely it'll be better than 1/35,the problem for me as usual is that first two numbers can show in 10 spins for example but last one will sleep for over 37 spins.

 

So this is how you chicken shit out. This is not the Zin of math and you are not that wise-ass sitting atop some mountain handing out wise-cracks. I just put that assertion in there because I've had to deal with it from your kindred spirits the mathNazies. I think you would have used it if I had not already flushed it down the toilette. Anyone can go back through your pearls of wisdom to see if you have used it before. I'm sure that you just love the idea of using two independent values, one to defund a bet selection to a degree and the other to attack the obvious continuing occurrence of a working situation. I've had to point out that this is a two level flat betting method or strategy designed to allow anyone the ability to keep playing at a live table that requires a funded bet on every spin. Otherwise the Virtual bet is employed as the small bet. So it is not some mindless progression as the mathBoyz use to assert. But you are far beyond that because you know when to run and hide. I'm still waiting for you to deal with your own logic flipped on its side by someone that can turn your logic into trash.