Roulette Proof of Turbo's Fallacy

You just never mentioned the essential piece of you quote which type of win to loss results .. hmm, might that be the answer?

lol

 

Actually, given what I just published at the RR thread, it's almost toast already.

I want it to be validated. But I also want to use it for the next year or two. This Covid-19 stuff has thrown a monkey-wrench into the machinery. Time to go get as much as possible for that rainy day.

 

True, but that's beside what Turbo communicated;

which is HOW to gain advantage overall, with betting the spread of those unhit numbers -- which inadvertedly includes some by definition long-term 'sleepers' & has nothing to do long-term hot/cold numbers, but variance fluctuation through congested & relaxed with hits spin intervals balancing'em towards 1/37 -- that game inevitably has (& always will) provided you with having a statistical advantage + spins you have bought yourself doing this -- with time or money, whatever.

Saying anything extra is like pulling your mesmerized submerged out a bucket filled with muddy water & tell you now you can finally breathe, freely.

 

Look at your signature, I've already wrote about this once -- win to loss results -- can be easily interpreted that no matter what amount of win(s) it all converges to ...

Might as well buy casonis' shares ..

 

Higher ? Omg .....But I've been told this is a fallacy....

 

And you is who ? Roulette, physic or math expert, which dicovered method that play with lower expectation is much better ?

 

4. Neither.

 

Ok, I will explain the meaning. In research all properly conducted experiments must pass a peer review board. It is after this that the research experiment reaches full validation. I'm talking about so many people using RR and getting win to loss results confirming its usefulness that the number of people doing it successfully goes far beyond any doubt that the method is validated. In other words it will force the math community to reconsider the numeration of statistics. It will force it to come up with new math formula for gathering statistics and calculating probability. It's in reference to so many people doing it that it will no longer be hidden from most.

 

So in short - you claim , that found something in math, as in science - what is wrong, and use that in game ?

 

I'm saying, as I have all along, that this is a practical application and use for math not yet explained or discovered. I have no interest in blowing any braincells on that undiscovered math. Anyone that wants to can go out and change the world. I'm just pointing out that the validation for this is already in process.

 

Practical application - wins on roulette ? That is what sounds very not logical...if something similar will be discovered - it will be used in some other direction, but sure not in roulette game, by simple reason - from roulette not possible to take as much as possible to take in some other sphere.

I know one, who try to find something wrong in clasical teory of probability and claim that something found. So he say that he use roulette as testing place, but... I heard these talks maybe 20 years and they are almost the same now and what was these 20 years back, so...

 

So don't bother with it. Is it your job or command post to decide what people do around here?

Do you have a seamstress and a good deal on bolts of Spandex?

 

Be sure - I not bother at all . For me only interesting, how peoples can year after year write the same and the same... if that will be some clever things...ok, but now ....

What leads them to write what they write in forums , what is interesting write the same in many forums... why that to do at all ?

 

Yes, since 2006 and I told the world that the greatest opportunity in the gambling world is the Elegant Pattern. And almost everyone has rejected that.

I am also interested in people that walk past a bag of gold and see only that it says "free Gold, thanks to gizmotron" on it.

You better pass it up. I would not want Spandex Boyz moving in and claiming it's their idea.

 

But what you write is only words...
I met many, who in forums talked similar, but no one can something demonstrate practically...
You can say - nobody wanted to share..., but you himself understand, that they not had what to share - that is main...

In the world are many painters , heard you that they hide from others, how they paint ?

I know not one player, which wins and we discused with them how they play. That is what - not bag of gold ? Why they not hide ?

You saw , that basket players hide how they play ? In that are absolutely not need...no sence.

I can show in details how I play, how I win and that will gave nothing for others !!

Here is the same like throws to basket - want hit must train long years... only then will be result. Are no any magic word after which you will become master ...and any idea can help to you that do better, only trainings.

 

This is funny. The irony is thick with replete.

 

still there .. what type of w:l results -- specify.

 

Mind posting the full picture ?
Or will it be too hard to überproof every & each way ..

 

Does it feed the bulldog ? That what matters .

 

Some, almost all, that have trained have displayed a 2 to 1 win to loss ratio in money won vs money lost after becoming proficient at the method. These are players playing even chance bets that have a probability disadvantage at around 47% win rate. The method has a two level bet MM. You bet big while in a win streak and bet small at any other time. There is no positive or negative progression. That's why it obliterates all known math.