@ Steve

[TurboGenius]

So exactly what is your point? That there will be a long term "balance" that we can depend on?

There is almost never a balance in anything random.
There is though a predictable difference between where the winning horse crosses
the finish line and where the 2nd and 3rd place horse are at that point.
So once you know this - if you ever do (there's a tester right in this thread now) you'll
have to wonder - if horse "A" is 50 feet from the finish line and the other two horses trail behind where random says they will be - would you put your money on the lead horse to win ?
Of course you would. It's predictable.
The exact same thing happens with random numbers being drawn in roulette... but I'm thinking that's not worth getting into. A few readers get it, that makes the thread worthwhile in my opinion.

[psimoes]

Seriously, so on average the second and third places will be distant from the first for one and two thirds of the tracks length. OK, that still only defines the PLACES, not the actual horses. The first place can and will be ANY horse. Because the racetrack being fair to all the competitors means they all will finish in first, second and third for about the same number if times. Worse, place changing can happen during session and the favourite gets relegated to third while the underdog wins.
Worst, they all waste 37 portions of ration to finish the race but the prize is only 36.

[cht]

There is almost never a balance in anything random.
There is though a predictable difference between where the winning horse crosses
the finish line and where the 2nd and 3rd place horse are at that point.
So once you know this - if you ever do (there's a tester right in this thread now) you'll
have to wonder - if horse "A" is 50 feet from the finish line and the other two horses trail behind where random says they will be - would you put your money on the lead horse to win ?
Of course you would. It's predictable.
The exact same thing happens with random numbers being drawn in roulette... but I'm thinking that's not worth getting into. A few readers get it, that makes the thread worthwhile in my opinion.

For short sprints, the lead horse makes every post a winning one is possible.

Long distance races, lead horse normally punctures 3furlongs out. Frankel 2000 guineas is the best example of superb front running victory.

[denzie]

Turbo, would you mind giving us the spins of this ? 

Cheers

[psimoes]

bet 25 on the 2x, 50 on the 3x, 100 on the 4x... never mind if the 4x never shows up, just double the bankroll and quit while ahead

[psimoes]

A twist. 25 on the 2x, 75 on the 3x, 175 on the 4x... After 37 spins get rid of all the 2x sleepers.
Wish I was this lucky in real life

[Lucky7Red]

Oh dear  not again simulator.

[psimoes]

Simulater only for show turbo meth to plyer

[TurboGenius]

Seriously, so on average the second and third places will be distant from the first for one and two thirds of the tracks length. OK, that still only defines the PLACES, not the actual horses. The first place can and will be ANY horse. Because the racetrack being fair to all the competitors means they all will finish in first, second and third for about the same number if times. Worse, place changing can happen during session and the favourite gets relegated to third while the underdog wins.
Worst, they all waste 37 portions of ration to finish the race but the prize is only 36.

All I asked was where the #2 and #3 horses would be "on average" on the track when the leader wins the race. This is math and it's not hard at all to do - there's even a program in this thread to do it for you (and me) - and proves that "random" is "predictable" since you can pick the winner very near the end of the race and almost always be right (Don't have to be right 100% of the time).
Random is Predictable is beyond what the "nay sayers" can handle obviously - it's the first step in understanding how the game can be beaten with math, but it's easier for them to just deny it or say it doesn't relate to roulette, etc.
In reality it sure does -
If they spend 10 minutes thinking about it - "easy peasy"
make #1 a horse, #2 a horse and #3 a horse.
On any win (random) move the bet to the right one spot.
Watch what happens !!  Just like the tester coded in this thread - one horse will win, the other two will be at a predictable position behind in their own column.
So if the horse going #1 to #34 is at #31 and the other two are behind - would they bet on that horse to make it to the last spot before the other two catch up and win ? Of course - random shows us that.
No one is saying it will show any faster or slower than the other 'horses' in the race or it will make a profit, All I'm asking is which 'horse' would win.
It's completely random and predictable with amazing accuracy.
But of course that would mean random can be predicted and they can't wrap their minds around that, much less the actual ways to do it and make money playing the game.
So maybe I'm wasting my time. It will be in the book though, I'm seriously thinking of writing one.
I can also easily display how to win using patterns - but they don't believe in those either, even though I could display it working perfectly each and every time they tried it.
It's just not worth it, they'll never get it.

[RouletteGhost]

"random" is "predictable" since you can pick the winner very near the end of the race and almost always be right (Don't have to be right 100% of the time).

Random is Predictable is beyond what the "nay sayers" can handle obviously - it's the first step in understanding how the game can be beaten with math, but it's easier for them to just deny it or say it doesn't relate to roulette, etc.
In reality it sure does -

Because they are scared to admit they are wrong. Or that it will shatter everything they thought they knew.

[Winner]

Because they are scared to admit they are wrong. Or that it will shatter everything they thought they knew.

It is predictable even with an even money bet .

[vladir]

Yes I agree you can calculate on average where the horses will be. But how does that help?

[TurboGenius]

Because they are scared to admit they are wrong. Or that it will shatter everything they thought they knew.

True

Yes I agree you can calculate on average where the horses will be. But how does that help?

It helps to show that things that are random can also be predictable.

For the patterns comment I made - (because they say random doesn't make patterns you can benefit from....) Pattern noted - and exploited.... simple.
("not enough spins", "simulator is fixed", "toy wheel", "can't do it in a casino" and last but not least "misleading the masses for some nefarious plan") There, I think I covered it all.


Made 6 times my starting bankroll in only 190 spins, it's got to be magic or nonsense.

[RouletteGhost]

If AP is your thing, then stick to AP

Don’t spend your free time ripping on people who play differently

It’s weird. There are psychiatrists for that

The AP section at GF: Not one thread from this clown

[Steve]

All I asked was where the #2 and #3 horses would be "on average" on the track when the leader wins the race. This is math and it's not hard at all to do - there's even a program in this thread to do it for you (and me) - and proves that "random" is "predictable" since you can pick the winner very near the end of the race and almost always be right (Don't have to be right 100% of the time).

You have your wires crossed. You are misunderstanding. What you're saying is like saying after 1000 spins, there will be around equal reds/blacks, that its predictable and you can use this. But you cant.

Random is Predictable is beyond what the "nay sayers" can handle obviously

I'm not a naysayer. I'm just someone who understands the simple logic and math. You are not providing proof of concept. But the "naysayers" provide proof of many things including repeaters not changing the odds. And again, repeaters and hot numbers are really old news.

it's the first step in understanding how the game can be beaten with math, but it's easier for them to just deny it or say it doesn't relate to roulette, etc.

The only math you have cited is flat wrong. You have never shown any correct math as proof.

This is a big waste of my and everyone's time. I'm sorry it is just like the flat earthers that promise to reveal big fireworks proof, but we get nothing but more misunderstandings of reality. Its not personal. Your naysayers arent the unreasonable people. They are the only ones with logic and verifiable supporting data and test results - and instead of that, your examples and logic are backwards and incorrect.

You are misleading people, and I just hope they dont take too long to understand why your approaches dont work. The facts have been explained many times, but some people who still follow your inaccurate claims choose to bury their head in the sand. That's their problem.