Turbo's System, Logic, Common Sense, and a Square

[The General]

In geometry we can use logic to prove something.  For example, we can prove the diagram below is a square,






In roulette we can also use logic and common sense as well to prove that something won't work. For example Turbo's system. (Hot numbers aren't really anyone's system for what it's worth.)

1.In the random game there are 38 pockets
2.The same number of pockets remain on the wheel from one spin to the next.
3.Therefore the odds of winning do not change from one spin to the next, regardless of what has hit before.
4.Consequently the expectation is that a past hot number will hit just as frequently as a past  cold number 1/38
5.The payoff is only 35 to 1 which means the house edge is retained at each spin. 5.26%



I wish everyone could follow the logic, unfortunately many people here are mentally challenged, and are still determined to prove that a square is not a square. 



-The General

[Nimo]

Sigh....repeaters fall within the math, not outside of it.  Odds are always 1/38 for a double zero and 1/37 for a single zero wheel.  Odds do not change, repeaters fall within the odds. A square can still have a bunch of squares in it. 

[Turner]

unfortunately many people here are mentally challenged

You really are a piece of work Caleb.
Its laughable.....no...its fuckin priceless

[Andre Chass]

In geometry we can use logic to prove something.  For example, we can prove the diagram below is a square,






In roulette we can also use logic and common sense as well to prove that something won't work. For example Turbo's system. (Hot numbers aren't really anyone's system for what it's worth.)

1.In the random game there are 38 pockets
2.The same number of pockets remain on the wheel from one spin to the next.
3.Therefore the odds of winning do not change from one spin to the next, regardless of what has hit before.
4.Consequently the expectation is that a past hot number will hit just as frequently as a past  cold number 1/38
5.The payoff is only 35 to 1 which means the house edge is retained at each spin. 5.26%



I wish everyone could follow the logic, unfortunately many people here are mentally challenged, and are still determined to prove that a square is not a square. 



-The General

👏👏👏 Bravo!

[The General]

Some systems actually are better than other systems.

If you're playing on a LIVE REAL wheel.  Then playing on hot numbers is a great idea.  The idea being that if the wheel is somehow biased, then you're more likely to be on the best numbers.

However, playing hot numbers on an RNG or random wheel is a waste of time.
It's like trying to play wheel sectors on an RNG.   

[The General]

You really are a piece of work Caleb.
Its laughable.....no...its fuckin priceless

I thought that it was kinder than saying that some people are dumber than a box of rocks.


Steve, Turner,

I really should be able to thank my own posts.  I keep trying to thank myself, but it won't let me do it.   

[Turner]

I thought that it was kinder than saying that some people are dumber than a box of rocks

Well...its obvious you are well versed in gathering a respecting audience
Andre liked it LMAO

[Turner]

Common sense should tell you to somehow attack the function of the RNG and it's seed.

OK...so here is a Chi square chart for 50K random numbers between 0 and 36

How would you exploit this with your common sense?

from my standpoint, I am drawn to the bottom comment which suggests that 3 cycles isnt enough, because the apparent biases are not biases, but due to coincidence.

These coincidences are what we call hot numbers, or better still, hot numbers are the coincidences which cause repeats.

In a cycle of 37 spins, every number has the same chance to come out. So, for all the numbers to come out i.e 37 in 37 spins, this would need unthinkable probabilities. Probabilities that are negligible.

So when a number repeats in 37, its because every number has an equal chance to show. Thats why 19, or 4, or 33 can show 2 or 3 times, even 4 or 5.

When 19, or 4 or 33 shows more than once, its due to binomial distribution. Some call it the law of the 3rd.

This will happen every time in +/- deviations. A deviation of SD3 may be something like 20 hit and 17 dont. its much rarer than 24/13 because that is the mean.

This happens. This is reality.

The big point here is that the actual #19 came out more than once in 37, and 4 and 33 also did was a coincidence.

You can exploit these coincidences. If you play in a way that captures at least some of these coincidences you have a good system.

[TurboGenius]

In geometry we can use logic to prove something.

Wrong. "we" use math in geometry, not logic.
Can you solve this Mr. "this is a square logic" ?
What is the vertical asymptote of the graph of y=log5(xâˆ'7) ?
Oh wait, that's geometry too but it's complex and you don't understand it and you
can't solve it because it's beyond what you know. (now run to google and pretend to know the answer).
Maybe things are more complex than your "square" and yet are contained in the
exact same subject. Being ignorant about something doesn't mean everyone else is.

I wish everyone could follow the logic, unfortunately many people here are mentally challenged

Insulting people smarter than you by calling them mentally challenged just makes you look even more ignorant than you already make yourself out to be.
Why not stick with wobbling wheels ? That's your bread and butter - system players
really shouldn't concern you at all. Stick with what you know - when you venture out of that you just insult yourself.

[TurboGenius]

👏👏👏 Bravo!

I think I can say that you are very close to being the biggest ass kisser I have ever seen.
There's a few ahead of you that I know but you're gaining ground quickly.
It's pathetic and sad. Too bad there isn't a bot that auto-posts so you can set it that
anytime Steve or General post it will auto-post for you "That's RIGHT !!!!"
You are a scammer and a kiss ass - not good at either. Why not post something
of value to the members here ? It's not hard to do. You clearly won't get popular
by kissing ass or by scamming, you're 0-2.

[TurboGenius]

I really should be able to thank my own posts.  I keep trying to thank myself, but it won't let me do it.

That's a shame, you only have 1 "like" more than I do - just 1.
How is that ?
How can it be ?
You : 841 days, 1,070 posts, 1.272 posts per day average, 80 likes
Me: 1,259 days, 792 posts, 0.6 posts per day and 79 likes.

For someone who posts so much more than I do (1.272 per day wow)
why don't you have more "likes" ?
It's because there's no reason for anyone to like what you say - you don't help
anyone, you insult others who don't deserve it and offer nothing to the forum.
How is that for logic.

[Turner]

How is that for logic.

LOL....you "squared" that off nicely

[Steve]

Wrong. "we" use math in geometry, not logic

They're expressions of the same thing. It's like saying science vs religion, when actually they're no different.

Insulting people smarter than you by calling them mentally challenged

It may not be the best choice of words, but some people really are not very intelligent, and fail to understand even simple concepts.

[TurboGenius]

They're expressions of the same thing. It's like saying science vs religion, when actually they're no different.

It is not the same thing. There is no logic needed in geometry, it's completely math.
But I know - sometimes my analogies are a stretch as well. No need to defend him when he's wrong because agreeing with him is more important than when I tell the truth.

It may not be the best choice of words, but some people really are not very intelligent, and fail to understand even simple concepts.

Fortunately I have first hand experience with this. As I said before my autistic son (who Tony loves to crack jokes about ever since I mentioned it) is considered challenged.
It's difficult for him to write his own name. However he is exceptionally intelligent in other areas well beyond most people that I've met. Strange how that works. It doesn't really matter if someone isn't the most intelligent person when it comes to math or random - they can still have approaches that might be something a more intelligent person would simply have skipped over.
Also - according to your comment - "you" are the one defining who is intelligent and who isn't. That would somehow mean you are the judge of someone being intelligent or not - which is exactly what General loves to do with his comments.
I'm sorry to say - there is no validity whatsoever that either of you are in a position to
judge others when it comes to intelligence - and neither am I that judge.

[Steve]

It is not the same thing. There is no logic needed in geometry, it's completely math.

The logic is the math, and vice versa.

No need to defend him when he's wrong because agreeing with him is more important than when I tell the truth.

Im not defending him or anyone, just explaining the truth.

As I said before my autistic son (who Tony loves to crack jokes about ever since I mentioned it) is considered challenged.

By now you understand why I say Tony is a disrespectful & vile little boy. Unfortunately he's nothing compared to some other people.

Also we arent talking about autistic. That's not an intelligence issue. That's more a social thing. I was referring to people who literally are just not that intelligent.

they can still have approaches that might be something a more intelligent person would simply have skipped over.

I acknowledge that. But some things are black and white too, like contradictions in your logic which Im not explaining again.

Also - according to your comment - "you" are the one defining who is intelligent and who isn't.

It's like understanding basic math. Some people understand it, some dont. I'm not talking calculus. I'm talking basic arithmetic and statistics. And some people don't understand simple reasoning and logic. At what point do I call something what it is?

That would somehow mean you are the judge of someone being intelligent or not - which is exactly what General loves to do with his comments.

General understands it too. But its really, really simple stuff. It's not like we sit on our thrones and point at who we deem to be mentally challenged. It is a matter of some people arent understanding really basic stuff despite it being pounded in their face.

I'm sorry to say - there is no validity whatsoever that either of you are in a position to judge others when it comes to intelligence - and neither am I that judge.

You say that, but at some level you would observe someone else's understanding and behavior, and realistically assume, without bias, that the person is not particularly intelligent.

On some level, I'm the slow one too. I'm not claiming to be all superior. At some point, we need to be realistic and say it how it is.