@ Steve

[psimoes]

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).

Turbo, I´ve ran the program a few times and I don´t think it proves anything. It´s the same as simulating dozens or columns on a no zero wheel. Sometimes the dominant dozen wins, sometimes it doesn´t.

I wish this was a HG, I´d be all over it, but can´t agree with it. Sorry.

[psimoes]

Do you trust that RNG? I don´t think it´s quite random. Look at all the back-to-back repeaters and the intermitent repeaters as well like (13 22 13...26 14 26 etc). It´s a small sample but I´ve ran into several sessions that resemble that one too much.

[Joe]

That is perfect. I would give you 10 extra likes if I could !

Thanks Turbo. I'm a fan of betting on hot numbers and repeaters myself. It seems to work better than if you pick numbers which are "cold" even though the maths says there should be no difference. Or does it? There is actually some mathematical support for it.

link:s://:.pinnacle.com/en/betting-articles/Betting-Strategy/how-often-does-the-lead-change/FHY2BM6AU2UJTQH9

One way your analogy of a horse race falls short of roulette is that in a horse race we know when the winner has won (every racetrack has a finite length), but when playing roulette there is no "end", just an infinite stream of random numbers. So I find it's better when playing roulette to set up artificial "finish lines" and pick several numbers fairly close to them. It doesn't always work of course, but it's a pretty good way to play.

[FreeRoulette]

Hey Turbo,

I think randomness boils down to a lack of understanding. If you could understand every single factor, then you would know what the outcome is. No one can do that, but some people understand the variables better than others giving them a better advantage.

In your example, one horse wins, you are betting on the other two, but you have information that other bettors don't. When the first horse wins, someone plans on shooting the other two so they never finish. Maybe the plan fails, but you have that little bit of extra information that someone else doesn't have. Its still random, but who will most likely win the bet?

[FreeRoulette]

I ran that program, in 20 trials maybe twice a horse finished with less than half the distance.

You can usually tell the difference between a random number list that a person just thought up and a real random number list because people will try to make the list balanced so it seems random. lol

True randomness has a hard time making things balanced all the time.

[TurboGenius]

So I find it's better when playing roulette to set up artificial "finish lines" and pick several numbers fairly close to them. It doesn't always work of course, but it's a pretty good way to play.

I completely agree. 

n your example, one horse wins, you are betting on the other two, but you have information that other bettors don't.

I'm not betting on anything in the example - just showing how when one horse wins - the other two will be at predictable places on the track. I don't need to always be right either. I can predict in a random supposedly unpredictable game which was the point of the post. There is plenty of areas in "random" that can be predicted with enough accuracy for the player to win.

True randomness has a hard time making things balanced all the time.

That's true - random rarely produces equality - and that can be used to the player's benefit. If you know "equal" isn't likely to happen, you can win by betting against equality happening.

[Roulettebeater]

Turbogenius

May you please tell us in "two words" how do you play roulette ?

[TurboGenius]

May you please tell us in "two words" how do you play roulette ?

"Always win". That's hard to do in two words.

To the topic at hand - Since I don't think Steve (or the General) are interested.

When one horse wins and is at 100% down the track -
the 2nd place horse will be (on average) 90.73% down the track.
the 3rd place horse will be (on average) 82.81% down the track.
So even with "random" in this example (be it a bad analogy unless you can
imagine horses in a race running "randomly" - which is what I was getting at)
Once a horse in the lead is beyond 90.73% down the track, you can "predict" with
very good (not perfect) accuracy that it will win the race, despite the fact that all
3 horses are moving randomly at all times - you can still predict random accurate
enough to win well above 1/3 of the time, which is all you would get just picking
one of the three.
One example of how random can be made predictable... but somehow I doubt that
will matter much to the people who don't see past 1 spin and think there's no comparison
between randomly moving horses and numbers appearing at random on the wheel.
I tried. It's a big first step for them to take to see the big picture, but they won't want
to take it.

[jekhb76]

"Always win". That's hard to do in two words.

To the topic at hand - Since I don't think Steve (or the General) are interested.

When one horse wins and is at 100% down the track -
the 2nd place horse will be (on average) 90.73% down the track.
the 3rd place horse will be (on average) 82.81% down the track.
So even with "random" in this example (be it a bad analogy unless you can
imagine horses in a race running "randomly" - which is what I was getting at)
Once a horse in the lead is beyond 90.73% down the track, you can "predict" with
very good (not perfect) accuracy that it will win the race, despite the fact that all
3 horses are moving randomly at all times - you can still predict random accurate
enough to win well above 1/3 of the time, which is all you would get just picking
one of the three.
One example of how random can be made predictable... but somehow I doubt that
will matter much to the people who don't see past 1 spin and think there's no comparison
between randomly moving horses and numbers appearing at random on the wheel.
I tried. It's a big first step for them to take to see the big picture, but they won't want
to take it.

Much to think about.
In the meantime, can you explaining us (the ones that want to learn) how we get a snowball effect in your way of playing it in roulette i'm General? You once said, that once the snowball is Running down the Hill, it is tobus to decide when the snowball Will stop Rolling and decide how much profit we want. I Just can't understand how we can be in profit All the Time at some Point. The number of spins doesn't matter. Regarding repeaters. Cheers, eddy

[Roulettebeater]

"Always win". That's hard to do in two words.

To the topic at hand - Since I don't think Steve (or the General) are interested.

When one horse wins and is at 100% down the track -
the 2nd place horse will be (on average) 90.73% down the track.
the 3rd place horse will be (on average) 82.81% down the track.
So even with "random" in this example (be it a bad analogy unless you can
imagine horses in a race running "randomly" - which is what I was getting at)
Once a horse in the lead is beyond 90.73% down the track, you can "predict" with
very good (not perfect) accuracy that it will win the race, despite the fact that all
3 horses are moving randomly at all times - you can still predict random accurate
enough to win well above 1/3 of the time, which is all you would get just picking
one of the three.
One example of how random can be made predictable... but somehow I doubt that
will matter much to the people who don't see past 1 spin and think there's no comparison
between randomly moving horses and numbers appearing at random on the wheel.
I tried. It's a big first step for them to take to see the big picture, but they won't want
to take it.

I really wish for a constructive debate with you over this!

When you say that you beating roulette with random, you are giving the guys who don't believe you a great evidence that your system is a loser!

How on earth, can one beat random game with random bets ?!!

Most winners try their best to reduce randomness in roulette so that they can increase their profits, but according to you, the more Random the wheel, the more profitable it is !


Who should one believe, you or the 99.9% of famous roulette players ?

!!!!!

[TurboGenius]

How on earth, can one beat random game with random bets ?!!
Who should one believe, you or the 99.9% of famous roulette players ?
!!!!!

I don't make random bets - I used the random outcome the wheel provides and predict the outcome.
As for believing me - the naysayers never will, other people will - it's not really a big deal to me who does or doesn't - or how "experienced" they are.
People tend to be stuck in their ways and no amount of convincing will work.
They've been told from the beginning that beating the game was impossible, random isn't predictable, the house edge can't be overcome - when that happens and is displayed, it has to be rigged and misleading doesn't it ?
If it wins in a casino, then it's "not enough spins".
Famous roulette players ? I would have to say that covers me as well.
I don't need to sneak in a computer or scour the globe for a bias wheel - those are
probably much more exciting ways to go because they are both complicated to pull off and work ! Some guy using a system that never loses on any wheel or RNG just doesn't have the same credibility lol.
I'll start "ASP" instead of "AP" - they can have that.
I'll call it "Advantage System Play"..... hey, that's a good idea.

[jekhb76]

I really wish for a constructive debate with you over this!

When you say that you beating roulette with random, you are giving the guys who don't believe you a great evidence that your system is a loser!

How on earth, can one beat random game with random bets ?!!

Most winners try their best to reduce randomness in roulette so that they can increase their profits, but according to you, the more Random the wheel, the more profitable it is !


Who should one believe, you or the 99.9% of famous roulette players ?

!!!!!

Because Random has his limits.

[jekhb76]

@Turbo,
When you Have the Time and Energy, can you please respond to my question and my emails?
Cheers.

[cht]

I'll start "ASP" instead of "AP" - they can have that.
I'll call it "Advantage System Play"..... hey, that's a good idea.

TG, I have been thinking a name.

ASP is a good name.

[Winner]

I don't make random bets - I used the random outcome the wheel provides and predict the outcome.
As for believing me - the naysayers never will, other people will - it's not really a big deal to me who does or doesn't - or how "experienced" they are.
People tend to be stuck in their ways and no amount of convincing will work.
They've been told from the beginning that beating the game was impossible, random isn't predictable, the house edge can't be overcome - when that happens and is displayed, it has to be rigged and misleading doesn't it ?
If it wins in a casino, then it's "not enough spins".
Famous roulette players ? I would have to say that covers me as well.
I don't need to sneak in a computer or scour the globe for a bias wheel - those are
probably much more exciting ways to go because they are both complicated to pull off and work ! Some guy using a system that never loses on any wheel or RNG just doesn't have the same credibility lol.
I'll start "ASP" instead of "AP" - they can have that.
I'll call it "Advantage System Play"..... hey, that's a good idea.
[/quote
Turbo you are very good writer you should think a book it would sell hands over fist.
Ps need you thoughts on even money bets after doing test on them like the video on nuclear physics random it's so easy to see where they were right on thousand on trial but how can this be used in say 200 bets  thanks