If you look at this link there is system that turbo genius had made in the past.
link:://turbogenius.webs.com/possibleholygrail.htm (link:://turbogenius.webs.com/possibleholygrail.htm)
Its about straight numbers but it can be adapted on any bet(splits,corners,streets etc)
If we take aa look at his testing graph of 13.000 spins the system is a winner(on those spins) and the biggest down inside the spins is about -1.200 chips....
If we adapt this system on Double Streets it means that this -1.200 would be -200...because 1.200:6=200.
Has anyone tested this system further???
I think GLC has tested it a lot in the past....Can you tell us your results please?
Or anyone elses results?
Or any comments on this system.
Thanks.
The INTERESTING point in this link is that TURBO tested the system on the same numbers with 2 ways.
1)Pick the numbers to bet randomly
2)Pick the numbers that was behind in showing up
The 2nd was a winner and the 1st was a loser..... So does that means that there are indeed better bet selections by the maths??? Food for thought
Anyway I adapted the system on Double Streets (Less BR needed and also less time to wait until the less hit shows up) .
I also changed something else....
He say that if we have to bet on more bets(because the bet spin cycle finished without a win) we can chose any number from the less hit if they have equal hits...
I WAS NOT chosing any of the double streets if they has same amount of hits !
I was increasing the bet by +1 chip on the same bet(that i hadn t win) and when a new double street had the least hits, then i was betting on it on the same cycle as the other double street that i was betting.
I also changed 1 more thing...
If I was in a new Profit and I was looking for a new double street to bet (with 1 chip for the start of a new cycle) If 2-3 double streets has the same amount of hits I was waiting in the next spins for just 1 double street to have the less hits and I was starting the new betting cycle....
I tested around 600 spins .
The biggest down was 44 chips
The profit was + 376 chips.
Quote from: RouletteExplorer on Aug 24, 05:28 PM 2011
If you look at this link there is system that turbo genius had made in the past.
link:://turbogenius.webs.com/possibleholygrail.htm (link:://turbogenius.webs.com/possibleholygrail.htm)
Its about straight numbers but it can be adapted on any bet(splits,corners,streets etc)
If we take aa look at his testing graph of 13.000 spins the system is a winner(on those spins) and the biggest down inside the spins is about -1.200 chips....
If we adapt this system on Double Streets it means that this -1.200 would be -200...because 1.200:6=200.
Has anyone tested this system further???
I think GLC has tested it a lot in the past....Can you tell us your results please?
Or anyone elses results?
Or any comments on this system.
Thanks.
He based this system on:
link:://:.freewebs.com/turbogenius/1unitpervisit.htm (link:://:.freewebs.com/turbogenius/1unitpervisit.htm)
Well I just tested this system, 1 unit per visit. I tested on over 1 million spins, and the results were negative.
Placed bets: 217 016
End Result: -37 830 units.
Just like all of his other systems, this one fails. His systems are primarily based on sleepers. I have tested the sleeper theory exhaustively and there is no edge there whatsoever.
RE,
I think this is a very stable system. I have it on every bet except corners and even chances.
Same as you, I did well on Lines and Streets. Dozens don't seem to work as well, nor does even chances although there's no real reason why they shouldn't work also.
My tests on lines and streets don't quite match his 12,000 + spins test on single numbers, but I did come out a winner.
The nice thing about double streets is that you can play for a reasonable length of time and probably reach a stopping point. Playing on the single numbers, you can feel like you're going to be asked to pay rent before you finally get into plus territory so you can call it a day.
Since you brought it up again, I think I will test this again just to see if it's still better than most of the stuff out there.
Thanks,
G
P.S. Unfortunately, I didn't keep detailed records of my testings. In hind sight, I wish I had but I didn't know I would need them at the time.
Dozens don't seem to work as well, nor does even chances although there's no real reason why they shouldn't work also.
I agree and this is my problem
I think I will test this again just to see if it's still better than most of the stuff out there.
I think IT IS still better than most of the stuff out there.
The nice thing about double streets is that you can play for a reasonable length of time and probably reach a stopping point. Playing on the single numbers, you can feel like you're going to be asked to pay rent before you finally get into plus territory so you can call it a day.
My opinion is the same.... It is just NOT playable on straight numbers.
With some modifications on the bet selections I think it can become even better...
For e.g.. The thing that T. Genius say to pick 1 of any numbers that has the same less hits isn t so good.
In my case if 2-3 numbers(or D.Streets) have the same amount of hits, I am still betting the previous bet with +1 chip on it , but I am waiting for the less hit D.street to develop and then I am betting on it in the same cycle.
I believe that this Possible Holy grail is the best known system.
just for your info guys. i know someone who knows Turbogenious well, and he told me that Turbogenious published only his losing systems, no winning stuff is publically revealed by him.
so u can take and use his ideas whatever just be aware...
Turbo has no winning system. Many of his fallacy arguments on GG have been debunked through tests over the years.
Turbogenious published only his losing systems
This sounds reasonable but iggiv do you think that Turbo has a winning system?
No he doesn't.
Did he said so?
Well he can say differently all he wants. All I know is that over the years dozens of characters have claimed to have holy grails. Most kept them a secret. But the few that I was able to test were all failures in the long run.
I agree with you.
But I think that Turbo is not that kind of man.
I don t think that if he hadn t find something good he would ever post lies that he had.
Well either that is the case, or he thinks he has a holy grail. I have devised progression systems that beat over 1 million decisions, but it always ends up negative eventually.
I don t think that Turbo after all those years of expirience he would start playing for real if his system hadn t pass at least 2-3 million spins.....
Anyway only HE can know the truth .
Well I suppose it is possible he has a holy grail, but then again anything really is possible.
I agree with ya
It is just that I have one of the largest systems collection for gambling, and have tested hundreds of strategies and nothing ever seems to work. I have tried countless ways to beat the games (mostly baccarat), but am running out of ideas.
I have even gone back to the GG forum and tested many of Artenvivo's/Ipsumlorem and Turbo's ideas and they all fail as well.
It is natural...
when you see a system that it is already posted it can t be the HG.
It is supposed that the game has a negative expectation ... ok... but in this world anything is possible.
@LuckoftheIrish >> Hmmm, I just read all your posts. You sure do have some 'bad luck' with methods. Whats your opinion......its kind of like, nothing can work, hey?
Ken
Hey Ken,
I don't doubt that some people will be lifetime winners at roulette and/or baccarat. I, myself am just trying to find an edge in either game, but it seems like an impossible task. You wouldn't believe the characters I have worked with over the years trying to find a winner, but I never have.
Looking for that 'edge', hey? Well, good luck to you sir.
Ken
You know me Ken, I like looking for things I will never find lol.
Quote from: RouletteExplorer on Aug 25, 06:51 AM 2011
Turbogenious published only his losing systems
This sounds reasonable but iggiv do you think that Turbo has a winning system?
i don't know, honestly
Quote from: iggiv on Aug 24, 08:29 PM 2011
just for your info guys. i know someone who knows Turbogenious well, and he told me that Turbogenious published only his losing systems, no winning stuff is publically revealed by him.
so u can take and use his ideas whatever just be aware...
Laugh. I just noticed this thread - hadn't seen it before now.
I know someone who knows someone who knows me ?
Sounds strange. I never told anyone any such thing either (for the record).
"The internet has no memory" so wanted to post a reply for future visitors who come across it.
Be aware - Be very aware. Grins.
Thanks Turbo!
If someones writings influence you in a way that betters your understanding of a subject then he is a good teacher.
Turbo did this for me.
They dont have to be a genius...their enthusiasm can be enough.
I mean....many great guitarists mention Ace Frehley as being the reason they picked a guitar up in the first place. Go figure !
Thanks :)
I just hate it when I see that someone said that I said something when I didn't. lol
I think everyone can learn from everyone else - inspiration can be everywhere, it's nice
how that works out.
I am sorry. It was long time ago...
Quote from: iggiv on Aug 24, 08:29 PM 2011
just for your info guys. i know someone who knows Turbogenious well, and he told me that Turbogenious published only his losing systems, no winning stuff is publically revealed by him.
so u can take and use his ideas whatever just be aware...
Over 4 years ago, I agree. That was a while ago.
It took me that long to wander across it by accident to post that I never said such a thing to anyone.
Like I said in the other post - the internet keeps things forever. :sad2: Even things that aren't true.
But don't get me wrong please, it was not me who came up with this. Somebody else told me that, I assumed this as a known fact.
It was a private conversation so i can't tell you who it was. But anyway I am sorry about this awkward situation. Though please pay attention that nothing bad was said about you. It was between discussing different methods to beat roulette.