TurboGenius When does it lose ?

The 7 before this one had nothing to do with what I'm doing now. They were completely different ideas being tested.
I thought I had explained this.

 

People reset for all manner of reasons, just judge the play that is presented.
It’s like saying Usain Bolt’s 100m 9.58s world record is meaningless as he used to only run 10 seconds.

 

Ok clear, so they were other test as well. Just like on the other account.

Might I ask why you are testing so many ideas from you as well as others if you all ready have a winning system? Are you looking for a better one?

 

I said it another way too. You are saying that you wait for it to be playing your game. I don't know what that game might be or if it is multiple games. But I get waiting for it. Some might ask "waiting for what?" In my game I've always waited for what appears to be continuing to work. From experience I know to be happy and live with getting one net win off of any thing that is continuing to work. I don't hunt and chase the big long lasting streaks anymore. Because of that I tend to stay out of deeper holes in my bankroll.

What I'm saying is that I'm looking for anything that appears to be continuing to be in an actual phase of working. Now I have 6 independent groups to look for many games that are working from within each grouping. I'm looking for singles on the weak side, any dominate side / weak side configuration, absence of singles, perfect executing pattern, chaos, total absence of form, multiple combinations of patterns, and anything that I have never seen before. And on top of all that I have the most important game in all these smaller games. I find things that are continuing by actually betting on them at the smallest price possible. When I try to get a big winner off of a working continuing anything I take note of if that first attempt at the big price works or not. I'm playing a game within the game. I'm hunting for the phase that the first attempted big bet is working. Most of the time it works. But like I tried to say even the sequence of death, a typical condition found in randomness, can not protect all first attempt big bets. They can lose once in a while and that is normal. That's just a temporary set back. But the sequence of death is when you wait for a condition to be working and then try it, you lose that first big bet in a long lasting swarm of first big bet attempts.

Anyone saying that they know how to avoid that sequence of death in randomness is just fooling you or they are getting up and ending the session before it can do any damage. What has dogged me for years is that I can't get up and end the session because I have so much money invested in travel expenses, rented cars, hotel rooms, and other expenses that I must get back all that overhead to make the trip worth while. So I stay when I should be getting up. So the only thing that kills my game is playing through a swarm of first attempt losses. It's when the best looking thing that is continuing loses on the first attempted big bet and it just keeps happening. I've called that bad luck as opposed to all the other times where the continuing condition is working and calling that good luck. So I'm a good lucky streak hunter.

Now this will all fall away from view as it is tucked away in an obscure thread where only a small handful of people will have seen it. I have no idea what game or games Spike is playing and waiting for to be working. I don't need to know. I have my own games. I wait for them to be working. I've called that monitoring the effectiveness states since 2006. Yes, that is cryptic on purpose. And it worked to. Just about everyone has made fun of it like it's hogwash. I know that it works because I can control the flow of the game with it. And the very best move is to get up when there is a swarm of first attempt losses and it just keeps happening. So I will go back to waiting for things that are continuing to be in a state of working. There is no way for the casino to protect themselves from this deliberate taking from them. They would have to end the game. It can be done without charts in your head if you have to do it that way. I know this first hand. I do it in the game of Craps, just to relax.

 

According MJ those previous sessions affect the ones after.

He could even claim you "loaded" up the negative variance and paid lots of house edge on those losses on the previous sessions with the intent to make the session you show perform extra betterer. That's the nonsense of logic we are dealing with whilst he simultaneously claims the past spins don't influence the future ones. The mind boggles.

 

Are you kidding? Turbo is the crash test dummy extraordinaire. He is the king of system testers. He makes hundreds if not thousands of sims just to see how they work and their nature. It's like the Secret Service in America. It's job is to hunt down counterfeiters. These agents are trained by just showing them real money. So in the field when they find a bogus bill they know it right away. Many of us know a bogus system when we see it. Turbo knows this too. It's why we often just ponce on a claim that a system works when there is no chance that it will work. This is different than the mathZombies trashing everything because it will never conform to basic distribution.

 

I'm always learning new things.
That's just how my brain works.
It would be like inventing a car that goes 100mph when people used horses for fast transportation . It would seem amazing.
Now we have cars like the Devel Sixteen that can go 347mph. There's no end point when you do something
and then there's no point in going past that. Always learn.
This one did drop back a lot but it's still in profit - I learned about 3 things by doing this slowly on RS
that I hadn't noticed before and can add to the mix of ideas to improve what I already know works.

 

Don't you guys get it yet? Turbo knows how to win. Spike knows how to win, I know how to win. Several others know how to win without any method at all. I can win by only placing small or large flat bets on just red. It takes much longer but I can visualize a graph of results in my head based on playing red alone. It goes into over all waves of up and down phases and also has smaller moving averages just like the stock market has micro moving averages based on support or resistance. Where the heck do you think I got the idea? Look at the video posted above. He shows you a graph that is just like a results graph from red alone.

 

TwoUp doesn't understand what mutually exclusive means. He doesn't understand that the math doesn't say you're excluding all sequences which have more than two wins, but only that in any sequence of 69 spins the highest probability is 27% -- not 55%. In any sequence of 69 spins you can either get 0 wins or 1 win or 2 wins or 3 wins or etc etc, right up to 69 wins. These outcomes are mutually exclusive. Sequences with more than 2 wins have a lower probability than 27%. Your best chance of making a profit in 69 spins is only 27%. Anyone thinking logically would understand this, but it seems Dr Sir is right, it's just over his head. He believes that you can make a profit of at least one unit profit in 69 spins betting on one number more than 50 % of the time. If you can't understand the logic then test it on excel or write a simulation.

TwoUp is just confused, so in order to make up for this he has written a wall of text which isn't really concerned with the actual point at issue, but just attacks the mathboyz and tries to discredit them.

 

Here. This is a picture of a graph for 200 spins all bet at $90 for each spin on red. Can you see the big over all movement? Can you see the smaller micro changes? It's just like a stock trading tool only it all happens in about 7 hours on a busy live table.

 

@ Gizmo, no need to read charts. Just take any sequence of 69 spins and you have a 55% chance of making a profit betting one number (according to TwoUp). Stick that in your simulator and smoke it.

 

I don't give a damn what my chances are of making a profit are. I expect to lose more bets than the average suggests that I should lose. I do this on purpose just to tweak the mathZombies and their pseudo sycophants. I know what your brain trust thinks. You must lose a certain number of bets. But they don't have any probability calculations for knowing when best to lose. And my smoker is a Traeger Ranger with a rack of ribs done in competition rub. Yours is an old leather shoe marinated in the piss of a 20 year old goat and smoked with creosote treated telephone pole chips.

 

Yeah, but TwoUp is an expert in probability. And he does multi-million dollar trades on the markets too, so he must be right.

This is the sentence that has changed the roulette world forever :

This is SO exciting everybody, I can hardly type these words my fingers are trembling so much. Do realise what it means?? THE SEARCH IS OVER. I was wrong. Humble apologies to TwoUp for ever doubting him. The man is a true genius. The answer was there all along and I just didn't see it.

But don't tell anyone, and don't get greedy or the casinos will change the rules.

Now go forth and make millions!

 

I don't follow the argument, boring.

But I looked at the main numbers stick them into the calculator. This is what it says.

 

So this is does give you an edge???

Yes you win at least 55.69% of the time 2 hits.

Lets say we stop at 2 hits in a 69 cycle

What is the average win when we get 2 hits

What is the average win when we get only 1 hit

How many sessions there were no hits (around 16.2%)

Combine the wins and the losses.

What is the answer?

 

Sorry if it's already answered, but I don't understand the above section. How is betting up to 26 spins different from betting for an infinite number of spins? Betting up to 26 spins on the same number, or changing it each time, or choosing it based on a specific bet selection? Because you seem to be demonstrating probability vs. payout mathematically and bet selection doesn't seem to play any role in your calculations.

 

@ Ka2, no of course it doesn't give you an edge. You get 2 wins in 27.3% of sessions. If you include the other sessions where you get 3 or more it does indeed add up to 56%, but that doesn't mean you have +ev. This is what TwoUp doesn't understand; win rate doesn't equate to profit. You might as well say if you bet 33 numbers it gives you an edge because the win-rate is 89%. Probability 101.

 

Exactly! TwoUp is saying that just betting one number over and over will give you an edge!

 

I know but let him do the calculation

 

I read the laborious arguments on this forum.

Point of contention is how can math give the edge?

It's a simple question that layperson who have no idea about probability,

Can mere counting give the edge?

Naysayers wonder what the f magical crystal ball counting can show the edge?

Wtf then why are these bs artist crackpots claiming they play with positive edge?

Hmm.....

Must surely be SCAMMER!!!

TurboGenius is a fake, or possible SCAMMER!!!
He's the mastermind behind this deception scheme.
The whole lot of them are part of the deception.
Sock puppets!!!.

Be warned people!

Damn it, I knew this all along!