Turbogenius and gambler's fallacy

[Steve]

His claim is basically this:


He cites this video (from 21 mins onwards):

The main part he refers to is radioactive decay. Specifically how rolling die then removing the "5's" will mirror the curve of "radioactive decay". Actually none of it changes the odds or payouts.

Even the people in the video said the next outcome is "unpredictable". In roulette, it means the odds of the next spin are always the same and always the payouts are unfair. Hence the negative expectation.

Turbo's fallacy in this case is thinking long term statistics in any way can assure you of winnings. It can't (with exceptions like bias). For example, does knowing after 1,000 spins there will approximately be an even number of reds and blacks help? Not at all. It's classic fallacy.

Some of Turbo's comments are below with my comments:

and you can do this all day every day - regardless of "Hot" or "Cold" numbers, regardless of the dealer or the casino... because it is math which even the casino has no ability to change.

You cant beat roulette with math alone. The math is actually proof of negative expectation.

The fact that it's random allows us to use math to win (every time).

This is ridiculous. It's saying "we cant beat the game, so we can beat the game guaranteed". Random means random. Long term random or short term random. It's still random. Does knowing that there will be around an even number of reds and blacks over time make the spins less random? No.

The "reality" of this is that a progression is needed (to combat the house edge) (when used properly).

Progression does nothing except change the amount you risk on each separate spin.

you can do this all day, every day and it will never fail.

Failure is impossible. (Heard that before ? I have. Not with this though, math is rock solid and can't be subject to "good and bad" runs.)

Turbo's results in the roulette game show almost perfectly normal loss rate. You cant beat roulette with maths.

Roulette is only beatable because it is random

Actually, random means random. It means no sequence of previous results can be used to predict the next outcome, or any string of future outcomes. Turbo is saying that a string of outcomes are somehow connected, when they aren't. Thinking otherwise is classic fallacy.

In the video, they take away the die that spin 5. As fewer remain, the number of 5's naturally decreases. But the probability still remains the same. There is no connection. Other members who also know better corrected him.

At GG we were constantly hounded with "systems don't work - but my computer does" M. Howe.
The other forum seems to a be a rehash of that with "systems don't work - but my computer does" Steve H.

Part of the reason for the roulette game was so we could see who might have something, and who was full of it. I explained why the ranking algorithm was fair, and he didnt like where he ranked. At that pooint, he seems to have developed a problem with me. He didnt appear to have a problem with me until then.

And Mark was right in saying gambler's fallacy doesn't work. Whether or not his computers work are another matter.

Anyone with even a basic understanding of AP will say the same thing. This includes Caleb, Mike, Bombus and others. Is Turbo going to accuse everyone who disagrees with him of having an agenda? These people aren't selling anything. I don't know why I'm brought into these debates. Maybe Turbo thinks my sales of anything is somehow an influence to discredit his holy grail. But what about the other people that understand basic facts?

It's like "strange people" who have accused me of censoring the "holy grail" on this forum because it might "hurt my sales". Yes, so how many "holy grails" have we had here? Like when Alabalah was scamming people and I gave him ample chance to prove his claim. In the end, I had enough complaints about him that i had to remove him from the forum. Most people were glad. But a small band of people actually believed I was deliberately censoring his holy grail system because it affected my sales. It's delusional.

If I ever find a method that's better than my current methods, then that's what I'm be using. It's that simple.

As I said from day 1 at GG to Mark - you can't use a computer at a table openly "ANYWHERE". You have to conceal what you're doing - why ? Because it is not allowed.

Not long ago a player won over $200k with my Uber computer. In one session. He didn't break any laws. I don't think he or any computer user cares about your moral viewpoint and sympathy for casinos. Casinos are legal thieves who prey on desperate people. It's always good to see them beaten at their own games.

Any AP must conceal what they are doing. Why? Because casinos don't allow consistent winners.

If Turbo's "guaranteed" math system was as good as he says, he too would need to hide from the casinos.

But it didn't matter - the push to sell computers that no one is allowed to use went on and on - much like the other forum.

Should I not explain basic facts, just in case of how it might look?

Is it wrong to be selling something that actually does work?

Then their "mods" come here to disrupt THIS forum

Mods? Why single out Turner? Why not mention all the others who explain your mistakes: for example, Mike, Caleb and Bombus. Or do you not have something "convenient" to say about them?

Here we actually try to talk about things that people CAN use in the casino

All he's talking about is classic fallacy, then misleading people by telling them he has the holy grail.

So the computer people and their fans (and mods) will continue on..posting here (?) bashing any idea that anyone has because it hurts sales or potential sales. (Mr J has it spot on).

Ken doesn't care about the validity of one method or another. And I don't think there's anyone who actually believes he's a consistent winner with his "method". I know from his own admissions to me that he doesn't consistently win. That's why he wanted to buy a computer at one stage. Actually it was clear he had a gambling problem. The only "friends" he has are people who share the same distaste for particular people - it's more like a "scratch each other's back so we don't look so bad" arrangement.  I could ignore him for a whole year, and still he'll be harping on about how evil me and everyone here is. That's how much of a life he has.

I'll make this clear. My explanations about what does and doesn't beat roulette has nothing to do with what I sell. Claims otherwise are a "convenient excuse" when I tell someone their system wont work. Am I wrong? If I'm wrong, go make your millions.

If anyone isn't interested in AP, I don't give a rats arse. It's not for everyone anyway. In fact most people don't have the right mindset for it. What I do try to teach people is:

* NOT fall into the traps of the same gambler's fallacy

* Understand what the house edge actually is (unfair payouts)

* Understand WHY the only way to beat roulette is by changing the odds (increasing accuracy of predictions)

* Try NEW things, instead of the same old nonsense

Anyone who knows me well here would know that computers and various AP methods are my focus. That's because in my experience, it's what works best. But if I ever find something better, then I'll use that instead. And anyone here who knows me well would also know instead of re-inventing the same old crap that doesn't work, I encourage everyone to try NEW THINGS (whether related to traditional AP or not - just try something NEW). For example, the precognition experiments that I had software written for. That's not selling anything. Whether or not it works, at least I'm trying something NEW. That's a far less-explored road, and I've always said I believe precognition will be the future of AP. It is not quakery. There is real science behind it.

My message to you Ken is grow up. You're being pathetic. Don't blame me for other people not liking you. I did not betray you - you alone are responsible for people not liking you. I was your last friend, and you burned me too.

Turbo, don't involve me in your nonsense, please. I have nothing to do with other people telling you WHY your approaches don't work. Don't blame me or this forum. You involved me by insinuating I turn everyone against you and your methods apparently because I'm selling computers.

Dont make the mistake of thinking just because I display ads and have a website that I give a crap if some people are against AP. And let me remind you although I do sell some things, I give away my best technology for free, and allow people to pay only after they win. If people don't want to do that, why on Earth would I care? Plenty of people do recognize the opportunity, instead of 9-5 work for the rest of their life. I'm not interested in begging uneducated people to understand basic reality about casino games. But I am interested in working with people who already understand reality.

I realize I'm beating off a dead horse, but please, don't involve me. Especially you Ken. Grow up.

[Steve]

I'll give an example of what turbo is saying. He gives enough information to make it quite clear, without giving the precise betting progression.

Basically he says you'll never see this in 37 spins (no repeats in 37 spins):



What he doesn't understand is the above combination has exactly the same probability as this:



It's only slightly different, but "looks" more natural.

He's basically saying you can bet that you will never see no repeats. So his approach is basically the same as the "law of a third".

As Mike correctly pointed out, all that matters is the NEXT spin. You cannot change the odds by looking at a sequence of random spins. There is no "sequence". It is just random. The odds are always the same, and the payouts are always the same. No progression or bet size will ever change that. Many of his comments are complete contradictions he's obviously not even aware of.

Anyway unfortunately I don't have time to explain more of his mistakes to him. Again Turbo, when other people tell you why you're wrong, don't blame it on me and my computers like you did in the above quotes. I have nothing to do with what other people say to you. They have their own brains. I have no idea why you brought me into it.

[nottophammer]

Steve you're a star
1st image is exactly what KTF is all about, just betting the non-hit and that image would be the perfect game.

Image 2 is also a winning game, it's on many of the sheets posted.

Spins 1-10 is 9/10, 1 repeat.
Spins 11-20 is 9,+4 time to leave with the winnings.

Here we see what Luck of the Irish shows from is 500,00., 37 spin cycles, 33 0x's not seen, but it could happen, but when?

Countback on KTF would/could have 23 0x's to show at spin 37, so this is an extremely fast trot.
Thanks
Notto

[Steve]

Im not trying to rain on anyones parade. Every forum has lots of incorrect statements and gamblers fallacy. I only went into this one because of the stupid accusation that I turn people away from the "holy grail" or it hurts my sales. Id get by just fine without selling anything.

As for KTF, I never looked into it. Its actually really easy to know if a system works. Really easy. But people arent testing properly, and they are not understanding basic things that any professional takes for granted. I mostly gave up on explaining it because most people dont want to hear it. Anyone who is interested in the truth can get it from many places - not just me. Wikipedia. Testing, etc. Again the problem is mostly wilful ignorance, or people looking for some HG thats so simple, effortless, and makes millions. Doesnt exist.

Anyway pretty please, everyone should educate themselves a little to understand the basics, then try NEW approaches. It doesnt need to be AP. Even the precog trials. Anythung fundamentally different. I keep saying, you absolutely must increase accuracy of predictions. Theres no way around it.

[denzie]

As to how TG plays im not 100% sure. But my br does seem to go north. Will see what the future tells me.....

@Steve...yes it has the same probability.....but ive done so many sessions live , rng and rx....never saw that happen.
And i probably never live to see it.

Anyway i will keep testing it till my br bust or keeps growing. You can see my results. ( i know im still down though. But thats coz of to much testing and resetting the br. Now i started from 1000 to 14433) 

[RouletteGhost]

That forum is a cess pool. Used to bash everyone else

You know what that means? They themselves are insecure

TG has my respect. Cause he separates himself from the idiocy of Caleb and mr j

That forum is a sad excuse of an internet message board

They bash us for systems. But it's a system players forum. Let people do what they will. It bothers them in an unhealthy way.

Never seen such craziness from grown men

Mr j needs therapy and Caleb needs self help classes

[thelaw]

Not long ago a player won over $200k with my Uber computer. In one session. He didn't break any laws. I don't think he or any computer user cares about your moral viewpoint and sympathy for casinos. Casinos are legal thieves who prey on desperate people. It's always good to see them beaten at their own games.

Man........if the "Remote Viewing" bullsh*t wasn't a sign of jumping the shark..........this will do just fine.

Tried to support Steve as much as possible over the last few years, even when I didn't agree with him..........but the odor of bullsh*t is growing pretty strong as of late. 

So Caleb and Mr J are fine.........but Turbogenius is the problem? 

..............never-mind......

[RouletteGhost]

TG and ND play systems. Period end of story.

(So does mr j)

They just live in a box where there's are ok and everything else is dumb

[Steve]

Law, are you saying precog is less credible than trying to beat roulette with progression? What do you actually know about it? And it's really hard to believe a computer player won with a few â,¬5000 bets?

Caleb is right about 95% of the time, but his attitude towards others is the problem. Mostly it's because he sees the same nonsense. But sometimes its for cheap thrills.

Ken has a deeper problem. ND I don't really know much about except he attacks me for no good reason. I don't much care. Rarely will I bother wasting time on it. Unlike especially ken, i have a life.

I have no problem with turbo but he brought me into his rubbish for some reason.

Denzie, Ive had many systems that did well for a while then tanked. Then more testing revealed that worth some luck, random bets could have done as well.

GF is mostly full of banned members and people others don't like. It's great they have a place to go. Yes its a cesspool.

[RouletteGhost]

I never attacked Caleb for the message. I only attacked the messenger

for him it was more than explaining

The trolling is what he strives for and the condescending pictures  instead of just leaving people alone

Characteristic of a mentally insecure person

[denzie]

Denzie, Ive had many systems that did well for a while then tanked.

Didn't or don't we all have those systems?  For sure. Im not claiming I've got it or hg or whatever we wanna call it. I'm just testing the sh!t out of it the last 4 months. And well....time will tell.

One thing I'm really sure already though. ..I've I got tons of patience it would be very very very hard to lose if we know what happens every cycle. But I ain't aiming for that. I'm play from spin 1 . (And I've done a ship full of testing on rx)

Anyway .... ND and Kenneth can... (fill this one in yourself ) 

[Steve]

ND and Kenneth can... have a merry Christmas

[denzie]

ND and Kenneth can... have a merry Christmas

You're such a nice guy 

[rouletteKEY]

I believe TG is more right than wrong on the passages being highlighted here...not going so far as to say failure is impossible or that a method will never fail...never say never right

But...

If you can sufficiently take the variance away or limit it over a series of 10, 50, 300 (you pick the number) of spins and play both positive and negative progressions you should certainly win more than you lose so long as you put yourself in a position to succeed

Don't come expecting to win $10000 with $500 in your pocket

Don't set a time limit on your session...maybe it'll take more spins this time than it did the last 20 times you played

Recognize what's happening and go with it...but never put yourself in positions you can't recover from (progressions that have you investing thousands to win $1 on that big payoff spin that may or may not happen while you are at the table, actively betting, still have enough money to play and haven't hit a table limit)

I don't know how TG plays but if you are playing progressions (especially negative) you need gross variance in order to lower the net variance and the bankroll to play it out.  There's winning the battles and there is winning the war...When you leave the casino you want more in your pocket than when you entered

I can play several methods against each other and while three may be losing on this spin or the next... one is winning and then when the tides shift a different one becomes the winner of the moment (the progression allows each string of bets to be winners and I am not referring to even money bets that are very hard to recover from holes on).

So long as your bet selection isn't atrocious and your recoverability and stop losses are dialed in...you should be just fine...but human nature, fatigue, bankroll or some other crazy outside force takes hold of the moment and a winning program becomes a loser.  The casino plays by a set of rules that don't change and have unlimited funds comparatively speaking to ride out their losing streaks.

They (casinos) are also playing the other side of multiple systems simultaneously.  I am playing mine...somebody else is playing birthdays and sports numbers...somebody else in on double dozens and a couple wheel watchers are playing sectors...some hot...some cold number people...but few of them ever see it through to an end (flat bet so they can't recover, run out of money, run out of time, etc) so they all become losers at the end of the day...the casino bankroll and rules win out because so many individuals nickel dimed themselves into oblivion.

Just my observations and thoughts, not trying to pick a fight with anyone.  Been playing a very long time and have seen alot of winners and losers while considering myself a student of the game...that's just how I see it

Merry Christmas everyone

[RouletteGhost]

I'm with bayes and TG

I think there is a bet selection and progression combination that can overcome bad runs

Not overcome the house edge but a strategy with a progression and bet selection that work in tandem

I'm not talking martingale

A solid bet selection must exist