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:
You cant beat roulette with math alone. The math is actually proof of negative expectation.
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.
Progression does nothing except change the amount you risk on each separate spin.
Turbo's results in the roulette game show almost perfectly normal loss rate. You cant beat roulette with maths.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
All he's talking about is classic fallacy, then misleading people by telling them he has the holy grail.
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.
Linkback: http://www.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=18331.0
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:
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
you can do this all day, every day and it will never fail.
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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?
Quote
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?
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Linkback: http://www.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=18331.0
