Roulette Turbo and TurboMoron go into a bar.....

(What ever happened to that guy/girl/person ?)
Anyway, enjoy the story.

Turbo and TM go into a bar and sit down for a drink (I don't drink, I had coffee).

TM: Hey - how did it go today ?
Turbo: Good, good... won again.
TM: Haaa ! Of course you did - still telling that old story ?
(Turbo shrugs)

TM: Hey - I was standing there ya know - I was writing down all of those spins that came out while you were playing.... Did you know that 4 of those numbers never showed once the entire time that you were playing ???
Turbo: Yeah. I noticed that - I never played them, I lost nothing on them so it doesn't matter.
TM: Whatever - I just noticed they didn't show up.... if you had bet on them boy - you would have lost a lot with that stupid progression of yours !
Turbo: Well... I didn't play those numbers, and I never would - so I never lost even $1.00 because of them.
(quiet)
(TM sips and orders another drink)
TM: Heyy - did you notice that #4 came out 5 times ! That was crazy !
Turbo: Yep - I won on it 4 times, was great.
(TM sips again)
TM: Well whoah whoah I saw #10 show up 3 times in a row - crazy how random works isn't it ? I mean the whole time you were there it popped up what ? 8 times ??? Crazy.
Turbo: Yep.. I won on it 7 times, that was another great number.
TM: Well, it's luck you know. You can't predict future spins........
Turbo: No, no I can't. But it's not luck.
(TM downs his/her drink and orders another one)
TM: I mean what the hell right ? #5 and #9 showed up exactly like they were supposed to - so there !!! Didn't help you there did it ? I mean hitting at the expected amount ?? House edge !!!!
Turbo: Yep - lost a little bit... at the house edge... #4 and #10 covered any bit I lost though and plowed me into a huge profit. No worries.
(quiet)

TM: Well - so yeah overall nothing special happened, you just got lucky - had a good night huh ?
Turbo: Nah - just used math.
TM: Ha ! You don't know math obviously. Hey - that guy sat down and played on the same numbers you were on and lost ! Haaaaaaaa. So much for that idea huh ?
Turbo: No.. I already won on them - they are "past spins" for him and aren't relevant. He should have started with his own idea when he sat down.

(quiet)
TM: Whatever - hey go brag about it on the forums I guess huh ?
Turbo: Nope, just going to keep doing what I'm doing.
TM: Pffffff yeah 'cause long term that house edge is gonna get you HaaHaa.
Turbo: No, I'll win ever time I play.

 

I've got a better story. Turbo walks into a bar with a native American and a Wet Back. The wet back says " what is your jive assed, white bread, honky lips doing in here? " Turbo answers with "I'm selling fake documents that will fool the experts." The Injun says we have heard all that before. So the Jew says "We don't serve niggers in here." And the Chink says Turbo is a needy person... and nobody gives a damn...

 

Whats the best thing about eating out your GF while she is on her period?

At least you know she's not pregnant!

Ken

 

What does that red X thing mean?

Ken

 

I guess PostImage.org isn't allowed anymore - or they aren't letting pictures to be posted from their site.
Grrrrrrrrrrrrrr
I'll find another one I guess lol



oh no ! that didn't work either ! lol


Oh whatever ! lol
http://ak-hdl.buzzfed.com/static/20...7/anigif_enhanced-buzz-12833-1426647088-9.gif

 

In the bar again...

TM: Hey - how did it go today ?
Turbo: Good, good... won again.
TM: Haaa ! Of course you did - still telling that old story ?
(Turbo shrugs)

TM: Hey - I was standing there ya know - I was writing down all of those spins that came out while you were playing.... Did you know that 4 of those numbers never showed once the entire time that you were playing ???
Turbo: Yeah. I noticed that - I never played them, I lost nothing on them so it doesn't matter.
TM: You were lucky.
Turbo: Well... I didn't play those numbers, and I never would - so I never lost even $1.00 because of them.
TM: Easy to say after the fact. Where is the math that says numbers which are initially 'hot' can't suddenly fall into a coma?
Turbo
(quiet)
TM: Do you agree that each number has the same chance of hitting on every spin?
Turbo: Sure, but things just don't pan out like that, some numbers are always going to hit more often than others.
TM: Right, but how do you know which ones? If you think you can pick them, how does that square with the fact that each number has an equal chance of hitting?
Turbo
(quiet)
TM:The reason you've been winning so far is because of luck and your progression. Even though each number has the same chance of a hit you can still win (sometimes for a long time) because of variance, which is the same as luck.
Turbo
(quiet)
TM: Well - so yeah overall nothing special happened, you just got lucky - had a good night huh ?
Turbo: Nah - just used math.
TM: Math which you can't explain?
Turbo
(quiet)
TM: It seems to you like you have a winning system but it's just variance doing its thing. If you believe otherwise, show me the math, I mean real math. There's no difference between what you're doing and the gambler's fallacy, which says that some numbers are 'overdue' and therefore more likely to hit sooner than other numbers. Only in your case you're gambling that the numbers which have hit more often than others will continue to do so. The 'logic' is the same in both cases - i.e. there isn't any.
Variance, like luck, runs out, and the house edge will prevail. If you've been winning so far I suggest you quit while you're ahead or find a better system.
Turbo
(quiet)

 

I said that I was pretty much done commenting on it now - and I doubt there is much that is going to open your eyes to what you're not seeing, even though it's obvious. (no insult meant - it is what it is).

I'll leave you with a few comments.
Most of what you're saying is correct - but you're missing a piece of the puzzle that you somehow refuse to see.
Next...
There is no such thing as luck.
People win for a reason, people lose for a reason. It's not "Good" or "Bad" luck.
Luck isn't a thing.
You want proof in math (which has already been done now) but insist that my results
were based on luck that doesn't exist as a "thing". You can't have it both ways unfortunately.
I would suggest stop saying "luck" and examine why something worked (or didn't). It's a useless word.
And secondly I leave you with - there is no fallacy here whatsoever. You seem to believe that there is.
I'm not betting something because it is "due"....what I'm doing can be done over and over and over again and can not (will not) fail. It's not luck or fallacy. If you can avoid pointing to those two things as excuses why something works - you might see the answer slapping you in the face. It's all been spelled out aside from exact specifics (on forums) - which is more than enough info to figure it out.
You can always re-read this comical thread and perhaps you'll see something that you missed ? I can't help you beyond this. I won't openly post more details.

Puts my glass down and walks out.

 

Turbomoron,

You noticed the obvious flaw. Numbers that hit early, and stop hitting early in the stream are the Achilles Heel.

I will post the results of some simulations, demonstrating what really happens when hit frequency/distribution betting is used over a statistically relevant number of spins.

 

TG,

If you don't like the wordl luck, then use "variance" instead, which you can't deny exists. As Dr. Sir Anyone has reiterated, the flaw in your reasoning is that numbers which hit early and often will continue to do so. Why should they? And in fact, those numbers you initially pick are not necessarily "warmed up" relative to the others. It's an entirely arbitrary selection. Think about it. Suppose you come to the table and after a few spins pick the numbers 13, 27, and 31 (because they've hit at least once). But there's a guy at the table who's been there for the last 100 spins playing your system and he isn't betting on any of those numbers because they are "cold" relative to HIS "snapshot" of what was warmed up when HE started betting. So the system is completely subjective; what's warm for you is cold for him, and yet according to your "math" you should both be winning! If you extrapolate this scenario and add several more players all using your method and having started at different times you can perhaps see the absurdity.

 

Didn't you mean TG? You're not seriously endorsing his system are you?

 

Right back at ya.

 

Yes, I can "add more players" and yes - we will all win.
Please read link below and think about how those 13 players all won.
In your example very shortly that player who has been sitting there for 100 spins and I will both be playing the same numbers (in the future) and both winning.

https://www.gamblingforums.com/threads/38-people-go-into-a-casino.2364/

 

No, I know the system doesn't consistently work. It has some obvious problems. But I must say it is a better system than playing just cold numbers.

Some of the problems with the method:

1. Playing conditions and physics are ignored.
2. The method isn't specifically designed to exploit a biased wheel, (It's performance will change on one.) or at least he hasn't mentioned that it is.
3. A prediction can't be made based on the position of the wheel speed/ball.

When I demonstrate the method in the simulator, I'll show it in a few different ways.

1. On a biased wheel
2. On a random wheel.
3. Taking certain playing conditions into account on a biased wheel.
4. Various betting horizons.

 

Please explain the truth that a cold number can not be a hot number at the same time. It can only be a hot number at a later time. It is so easy to see a hot number. It's easy to see a cold number. And I say it's easy to see a number change. The hottest number in 300 spins, meaning that it will hit more times than any other number in those 300 spins, can have a cold spot of 60 to 90 spins. These one or two times cold gaps are common. The trick is in figuring out how to live with them. You can't know if it's a cold gap or a change. But you can get out of it while you wait to see what it is. Now to call this tactic math is just a far flung association to credibility or validation. Yes, these engage and avoid tactics could be proven mathematically to be effective or not but why bother saying it's math. It's choice and selection along a timeline.

BTW, it looks like Moron is a sock puppet of the famous forum destroyer, Snowman, better known here as Dr. Sir Anyone Anyone. What are the chances of that mathematically.

 

All which TG deems irrelevant because his system is based on MATH. Looking forward to your demonstations and simulations.

TG,

I wish you'd stop saying "I'm not seeing it", because I get it. Your system isn't that hard to understand. It's an attempt to target your betting on those numbers which, for whatever reason, are performing the best. It's a sensible idea but it doesn't work because random doesn't obey the laws you think it does.

 

There are no problems with it. I'm using math and I don't require a biased wheel to win. The conditions that you listed don't affect me at all. And in the event that I happen to play a biased wheel - all the better, I'll win even more and even faster... but it's certainly not required to win.

Deems you correct

It most certainly does.
Just as you can tell me 38 different numbers won't show in 38 spins or a number won't repeat 38 times in a row - you have already pointed out two things that "won't happen" (thanks to random). Because I'm using something that "Does" happen thanks to random - you won't accept this. I'm not sure why. Perhaps you've been told that it's impossible so many times that you don't bother to look for the answers anymore ? I don't know.

@Sir - I don't see the point in demonstrating that a biased wheel can produce a profit. I don't think anyone says that this isn't possible. The problem is that 99.9% of wheels aren't biased wheels at all. You can make a killing on the ones that are, which is great. The rest of the people are using systems and methods.

 

I should add - "The rest of the people are using systems and methods" and you two bright individuals will certainly agree that in order for ANYONE to win - they have to be able to bet and win on numbers that are appearing above average. There is no other way to win against the math that favors the house.
Your goal would be one of those 13 people in the other thread of course - they all won and only for one reason, that the numbers they played appeared above average.
So why claim that a system/method that predicts winning numbers at a rate that is higher than expected is flawed or based on some fallacy ? Because you don't believe such a thing exists ? And if you could possible understand that such a thing exists... wouldn't you also suggest using a aggressive progression (positive progression) to maximize bankroll growth ?
I'm not saying anything that you don't already agree with - you just don't know it yet lol

 

Turbo,

The system doesn't stand a chance of working on random wheels for obvious reasons.

As you simulate more and more trials you'll notice that what you're experiencing is just a random fluctuation.

 

100% accurate. Its the *ONLY* way to go. Granted, the details of the "how often/when to bet/when to drop a number" etc., are the most important but it can be done.

Share Ed? Why? Fuck'em.

Ken