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

If you haven’t got your head around TG’s method (probably because he hasn’t actually shared it and wild goose chases are tough going) then whatever it is we should not argue against it. Same goes for Gizmotron’s “situational awareness”. Same goes for mr.J’s “drop a number at some key point” stuff.


I’ll not argue against these because I know I have the game beat myself, and if I can do it, then any of these guys can do it too.


Good luck to all who strive for this victory over mediocrity.


P.S. It's not the only way, Ken.

 

I agree. The principle is sound, but the devil is in the detail. Specifically, for your system to work the numbers ranked highest in the list (in terms of the number of hits, or standard deviation) must not simultaneously go cold. If they did, and lower ranked numbers (the ones you're NOT betting on) moved up the rankings, you would be losing, and perhaps heavily, depending on how many numbers you're betting on. You can of course adapt and switch to the new higher ranked numbers as and when they move up, and this can work very well, for a while. You could also try betting on more numbers which lessens the chance of them ALL going cold simultaneously, but then the trade off is that WHEN they do you'll be losing a lot faster than if you'd only been betting on a few.

This constant shifting of hot to cold numbers (and vice-versa) will erode your bankroll over time, as proved by longer term simulations (and yes, I've tested these kinds of systems intensively in the past, and none of them worked, so I don't believe this merely because I've been brainwashed by the "mathboyz", lol).

You can tweak things until the cows come home. Different progressions, betting more or less numbers, all the usual tools in the system player's arsenal. None of it makes a difference to the bottom line I'm afraid.

 

And I'll not argue against anyone who has claimed that they've won, even if it's every time they've ever played (which is meaningless without numbers - maybe they've only placed a few hundred bets).

When you say you've "beat" the game, what you mean is that you've made a profit, despite the odds. "Beating" a negative expectation game in the way you intend it to mean is as absurd as trying to find a triangle whose angles don't add up to 180 degrees.

 

By "beat" the game I mean having reversed and improved on the house edge over a statistically significant sample with an ever increasing z-score.

 

The phrase goes all the way back to absolutism, fundamentalism, and dogma presented by the mathBoyz a decade ago. It's the same mantra spouted by Snowman and his other sock puppets. Spike tried to express it as "educated guessing." We both came up with "Reading Randomness" together. Awareness is just noticing that certain characteristics are occurring. There's no way to know how long they will last or when they will start or end. The mathBoyz insist that I'm claiming to know something that is unknowable. They are right that I can't know that. But what is funny about them is that they just can't accept yes for an answer. So they keep chanting their mantra as if being a retard is a virtue.

I'm mostly fascinated by those that choose to ignore the occurrences of what I call the "Global Effect." Some others around the world have attempted to call it "clustering analyses." It all falls under the subject and skill covered by “situational awareness.” My school, which is now closed to new students entering, is all about teaching that “situational awareness.” I created at least three special applications dedicated to teaching these skills. The students are expected to do the work in order to become experts at reading randomness and executing a strategy based on what they see.

I did this because I wanted my techniques known, just in case I died. You might call that another version of “situational awareness.”

I wanted others to know that these are not just my claims alone. They are only truly known by those skilled enough to know them in the first place. Everyone else is just guessing. Those that are so needy as to stick their heads in the sand have never really been part of the conversation. They are more or less just a buzzing, bothering annoyance. But that is what the internet is. There is no point in trying to change that. Anyway, that's just “situational awareness” once again.

 

Reading randomness is an oxymoron. Your school is a farce! Your school sounds like nothing more than a way to separate fools from their money.

 

I did a thread on this topic months ago. IMO, there are only TWO options with a method. If there is a third, let me know. (not referring to AP)

A) We are betting on past (hot?) numbers in "X" number of past spins and betting on them for "X" number of future spins.

B) We are betting on past non-hit numbers (open to interpretation) and betting on them for "X" number of future spins.

C) ?? Starting fresh (NOT knowing any past numbers) and having a betting strategy?? I really dont know?

Ken

 

It's better than being a moron riding on an Ox. Now reading Snowman is a major trudge. You can bet that most of his comments are just straw man arguments. The Wizard of Oz, the Scarecrow; "If I only had a brain?"

 

TM: haaah you didn't play #36 !! It showed up 11 times..
Turbo : sorry , my arms are short

 

I have some familiarity with reading random and it's not an oxymoron, not even close. If you study the outcomes long enough they make sense. And you learn to separate the times when they make sense from the times when they don't make sense. That's what most people cannot do, that's why they keep betting during periods when they should not be betting. They do not know how to read the random outcomes properly and they have no game for playing them anyway.