@ Steve

[psimoes]

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.

Exactly how and why, please? Thanks

[cht]

In a horse race the "finish lines" return more wins than horses. 

[The General]

Mistake one was claiming that you can beat the random game in the long run by using random to beat random.
Comparing horse racing to roulette didn't help the argument.

What would help Turbo make his argument would be math.  He likes to claim that math beats a math game, but we have yet to see the math.
It would be a pleasant change to actually see some math posted at some point.

The probability of winning on a number that has repeated is 1/37 in the random game.  I'd like Turbo to explain, if he can, how this probability changes in the long term. Again, using math, not horse racing comparisons.

[Roulettebeater]

Math beats math game ?

How crazy is this statement !
Maybe turbo has a PHD in mathematics and we don't know !
But even if he holds a PHD he won't be able to beat roulette with math !

Even Einstein couldn't propose a Mathematical solution for this game..
It's time to stop this nonsense !

[TurboGenius]

Even Einstein couldn't propose a Mathematical solution for this game..
It's time to stop this nonsense !

He never tried - and the so-called "quote" from him is a fake quote.
He could care less about random and could care even less about roulette.
PS/ since his fake quote means so much - he also said....
"A man in the future will beat the game with math. Math beats a math game.
Random is predictable and has limits"  Albert Einstein (as overheard saying at a bar once).
Jeez, his IQ wasn't even that high. Guy gets all the credit for everything lol

[cht]

"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.

This is the best analogy to start from. If you don't get it you never will. Thanks TG.

[The General]

He never tried - and the so-called "quote" from him is a fake quote.
He could care less about random and could care even less about roulette.
PS/ since his fake quote means so much - he also said....

I wouldn't be surprised if the quote was fake. 
There's a zillion fake quotes out there.

Random is predictable and has limits" 

Yes random has limits related to sample size/degrees of freedom.  Of course it does.  Meaning you obviously can't see 10 reds in a row in only 9 spins.  When you know the degrees of freedom, you know the limits and predictability becomes possible, but not like you're probably thinking and not like you'd like to probably hear.

[maestro]

person says is scientist and then does not know what staking to use on his betting system and now talks about Einstein....

i might be a bit drunk but fucking hell...get a life

[Roulettebeater]

person says is scientist and then does not know what staking to use on his betting system and now talks about Einstein....

i might be a bit drunk but f****** hell...get a life

Turbo?

[maestro]

person says is scientist and then does not know what staking to use on his betting system and now talks about Einstein....

    i might be a bit drunk but f****** hell...get a life


Turbo?

no not him  he knows what he is on about...it is you PHD math beater

[jekhb76]

Let's See if i get this Right in terms of roulette 

We start betting All the numbers that come from spin 1. When we have a hit and one of the numbers became a 2 we raise that number with a progression and Keep the rest the same. Everytime a 1 repeats it self it is raised. Once a 2 became a 3 we then raise the 3,keep the 2s and Delete All the 1s and continue with the 2s and the 3. We Keep adding 2s and raising when they become a 3 and continue.
As soon. As a 3 becomes a 4 we erase All the 2s and continue with the 3s and the 4.  Etc etc etc. Is this Right Turbo?

[Roulettebeater]

no not him  he knows what he is on about...it is you PHD math beater

me?

first of all, i am not a PHD holder, second you and TG have apparently zero knowlegde in roulette.

by the way, i still remember when you begged me to give you spins..

DO NOT BITE THE HAND, THAT ONE DAY HELPED YOU.

YOU TRAITOR!

[TurboGenius]

Yes random has limits related to sample size/degrees of freedom.  Of course it does.  Meaning you obviously can't see 10 reds in a row in only 9 spins.

No no and NO. We can't go there anymore thanks to Bago -  you know.
A number can appear 9 times in a few million spins then right ?
He said it's impossible. Therefore random has limits and my so-called enemy Bago backs up what I say while trying to insult me. Nice when it works that way.
So there's no limits, but "THAT" just happened and now it's impossible.
It wasn't possible - the mistake was found and fixed...."random has limits"..... it's just something you guys are going to have to admit someday.

[TurboGenius]

first of all, i am not a PHD holder

Whew, that mystery is solved.    lol Who woulda guessed ?

[maestro]

first change your pills...
second in open forum i asked for spin file of yours i do not beg and never will..chisel this in your PHD smooothy brain

and third if i ask you for help i rather buy a gun and stream the bullet in my head