Roulette Randomness & Question for Turbo

Hey Turbo, hopefully you get to read this as I've read your posts about the gamblers fallacy multiple times to try to get my head around it and I think the whole debate between everyone comes down to is...

Do the odds change at any point? If something is due according to Turbo then the odds are now different than 37 to 1 and you can exploit this to win more than 37 to 1 if done correctly. Which is what I'm still trying to figure out lol but I think im close..sort of

And according to Sir Anyone if something is below it's average it doesn't matter because the odds are 37 to 1 every time no matter how due it is to catch up. I think I will have to side with Turbo on this for the simple fact that the minute you sit down and play every # is on its way to show at 37 to 1 given enough time.

I have been playing around with RNG and line bets (6 #s) because they are much faster to track than single #s using the basic principles that Turbo advises at least the way I interpreted and small negative progression with some success. I do admit though that it seems pretty damn tough to overcome the 5.26% H.E. that is American Roulette which I've heard referred to as a "carnival game" but then again who knows. I've read a lot of your old posts Turbo and they are really informative, I guess I'm just trying to see through the Matrix and I think I understand but I feel like I'm missing a couple of pieces to really see the power of what could be an advantage. Also would you advise only playing numbers straight up or doesn't matter? Also is there a way to contact you
Thx in advance

 

My email is my name here and I use Gmail. lol
It's a violation to post email addresses - so there you go.
It's self explanatory this way.
I'll try to address your points and questions when I get home later.
Cheers.

 

Ok thanks Turbo, appreciate it. I'm testing some ideas on repeaters now and some crazy shit happened but it could just be some short term noise, hopefully not

 

Turbo can't explain why one number should be more likely than another to hit in the random game. (Gambler's fallacy.).

 

But you can. It's Bias wheel fallacy. PKB

 

No, the odds never change at any moment because each spin is independent, the ball is picked up and the pocket in which the ball last landed is free for the next spin so the odds are always 1/37 (Single Zero Wheel). The same principle applies with Russian Roulette, if you put a bullet in one of the 6 chambers of the gun barrel and spin it, you have 1/6 chance to explode your head. If you respin and pull the trigger again you have still 1/6 chance. THE ODDS DO CHANGE IF THE BULLET STAYS IN THE BARREL AND YOU MISSED TO SHOT YOURSELF, NEXT TIME IT IS 1/5 CHANCE THEN 1/4 ETC... UNTIL IS BECOMES CERTAINTY 1/1 YOU MISSED 5 TIMES IN A ROW.
But again with Roulette, as the ball is picked up from the last pocket and respun, there are 37 pockets in which the ball can land, therefore 1/37 whatever happened in the past.

As I said, noone can know if a number is currently having a negative or positive standard deviation, because it depends the amount of spins you are analyzing. Paul who tracked the last 100 spins won't have the same statistics than John who tracked the last 500 spins and Roger who tracked the last 1000 spins or Turbo who began to track when he sits at the table. That's why it is called gambler's fallacy, noone can know, at any moment, the true hitting frequency of a number.

If you believe you have changed the odds (hitting better than 1/37 for a single number) then it is contradictory to use any progression, flat betting is enough to win. Using a progression is indeed the sign that the player does not have any edge at all, and this is the case for the reasons I've explained above.

 

Winning with one number is pure luck. Nothing more , nothing less .



Happy Winnings .


ND

 

Of course - and if you watch someone do that 100 times and never get shot - well....
I can assure you in the next 100 tries the amount of times the bullet is there will far
exceed the expected average of 1 in 6

It's simple math, nothing more. I wouldn't suggest testing this for real though.

 

Please show "luck" in a math calculation - no one can, it doesn't exist.
Until such point - people should stop saying "you were lucky" or "your number appeared
because of luck". Luck isn't a thing, it never has been. It's a math game and math is all
you need to beat it.

 

I made a whole thread explaining it - it's not my fault you were too busy searching for gifs instead of reading.

 

Hey Turbo thx for responding I appreciate it, I wanted to ask you when tracking lines(6 #s) or any inside bet. Once the average is below what it should be let's say for example line 19-24 is 1 in 25 at that point do you just keep betting that same line until it gets all the way back to 1 in 6 average because sometimes that can take a lot of spins or do you just bet in 6 tries and if you don't hit just wait for the next one

Thx ahead of time

 

Hi Turbo

I'm intrigued to know why you are advocating playing sleeper numbers that appear when you said in another thread that you "cannot lose" playing a different ( repeaters ) system?

Cheers....
Dave

 

Turbo,


If with math calculation the ball drops into the desired pocket on the first attempt I would call this an achievement .



ND

 

It's simple but after 20 years you still don't understand probabilities. At the 101th attempt, my odds to explode my head is still 1/6. The odds never change for independent events, there is no connexion between them. Same after 15 Reds, at the 16th attempt my odds to hit Black is 18/37. The odds never change and the payout either so you are a loser in the long run. We are not playing BlackJack where cards are removed from the deck and don't go back into it at each deal, in this case the odds do change that's why the game has been beaten with Card Counting.

 

Bago ,


Then why is everyone going ape after ONE number ?


An attempt to hit a MOVING target the "math way " ? B S



NOT every day is Christmas . LOL





I personally have seen PROF that not even a stationary target was hit twice .

ND

 

Here's one of the big problems that has people like Turbo fooled. Hitting at expectation is NOT enough to win. If a number is hitting at expectation on the double zero wheel then the number falls two units behind break even every 38 spins in the long run.

After 38 spins, the number is 2 units behind break even.
After 380 spins, the number is 20 units behind break even.
After 3800 spins, the number is 200 units behind break even.

As you can see, the longer you play, the more you'll lose as a result.

Now here's another fallacy that many people can't comprehend. If a number is below expectation, they naively believe that the number is due to catch back up by hitting above expectation in order to reach it's long term expectation of 1 in 38. Here's why they're wrong. A number doesn't have to ever make up for the deficit of hits in order to reach it's long term expectation hit ratio. The spin sample just has to grow larger in order to create the illusion that it's catching back up. That's it!

Here's an example to help you understand it using the red and black without a zero on the wheel.

After 10 spins, red has hit only 2 times. 2/10. It's hitting 20% of the time.
After 100 spins, red has hit 47 times. 47/100. It's hitting 47% of the time. (Look out, it's catching up, right?)
After 1000 spins, red has hit 497 times. 497/1000. It's now hitting 49.7% of the time or essentially 50% of the time. Wow, it caught back up, right? Or has it? The red is still just as far behind black as it was in the beginning, but the hit percentages are essentially the same. As you can see, numbers don't have to catch back up in order to reach their long term expectation. The number of spins just has to increase. That's it!

Sorry, just the facts.

-Dr. Sir Anyone Anyone.

 

And if you started betting that -STD red at spin 11, after seeing it “fall behind” a bit, and then stopped at spin 80 or so?

The question isn’t whether numbers catch back up to 0 STD, we know they do as you just mentioned with the 1000 spin being at the expected level. The question is if it’s possible to recognize when a location or number is badly behind expectation, and then exploit it as it returns.

That’s what I’m curious about, and I have no dog in this hunt. Turbo and eddy could be right, they could be wrong. I want to see the data either way. Shouting down the system, or endlessly propping it up with cheerleading, doesn’t interest me.

Results interest me, and they can’t be found in words...just results.

 

Mako,

Please try to answer the following questions the best that you can.

1. Why should a number that's losing big be more likely to hit than any other number in the random game?
2. What determines the probability of winning, is it the number of pockets on the wheel or the previous numbers that have hit?

 

3. How do you know a number or location on the table is currently hitting above/below or at its average?. What is the golden rule? How many spins must be analyzed?. You can't answer this question nor Turbo, nor Elvis, nor any gambler's fallacy players BECAUSE PAST STATISTICS DO NOT HAVE ANY INFLUENCE WHATSOEVER ON FUTURE SPINS IN THE RANDOM INDEPENDENT EVENTS GAME THAT IS ROULETTE. IF THERE WAS, WE WOULD HAVE DISCOVERED A LINK SINCE THE 17TH CENTURY FOR GODNESS SAKE!.

 

My thoughts or opinions are unnecessary and frankly, unqualified to talk much about the complexities of the game. But i am qualified to test various hypothesis in a controlled environment that can shed light on their effectiveness or lack thereof.

Words are unnecessary here, the results will speak for themselves as they always do. Turbo says he’s right, others say he's wrong, both sides write endless posts to support their argument. I could care less. Show me the results, good or bad.