#1 Roulette Forum Message Board

Roulette-focused => Main Roulette Board => Topic started by: Steve on Dec 29, 07:00 AM 2016

Title: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Dec 29, 07:00 AM 2016
Turbo, I will try to answer the questions (pls make them clear) but I'm not going to post on gf mainly because the admin is a lying sack of excrement. For now maybe only he and I know that. When i next post there i will add my own custom signature. But for now I'm not interested in posting interesting information on a forum with an admin that's a dickhead.

Pls pose your questions. Pride aside, let the truth prevail. Id be happy to be wrong.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Dec 29, 08:57 PM 2016
Turbo, answers below:

1. The house edge (odds vs payout) apply to each spin independently, not a group of spins. But it is still often expressed over a group of spins, like say 37 spins ( eu wheel ). The problem with looking at groups of spins is you get stuck thinking you in any way changed the odds.

2. I dont understand what you are saying in this point. But two players with a combined result is just a bunch of independent results.

What youve said is not quite accurate. Its like stating an average rainfall amount each month. Knowing it still doesnt tell you if it will rain tomorrow. And even if guessed correctly it rained tomorrow, the rain god might say "tricked ya" and change his mind so you are guaranteed to be wrong at least one guess each month. The house edge is similar.

Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: tuddilue on Dec 30, 02:40 AM 2016
Which questions is he answering? Maybe I'm missing something here. In that case I apologizes...

I have read Turbos comments in the past. I think he evolves from system player to a more random player. Random is a fascinating subject and it is really interesting.

He also claims that the game of roulette is beatable by math. If you run a lot of spins you will see that the averages is the same. Maybe not exactly as law of the third but it is not long far away.

For me I really like playing the repeaters and with help of learning from KTF, WTF and later GUT. I have learned a lot and I read for example Turbos posts with other knowledge. He is trying to say something but hides it in riddles and bragging about how good he is with help of graphs and bankrolls. But he still has something to tell. I think I figured out how he plays but I'm not 100% sure.

It would be really interesting to see an example how he is playing? But to see an example of that maybe is aiming for the stars  :smile:

But I'm fascinated by the random and how you can use that with help of averages. Maybe that is not the correct way to go but it works for me and I should really want to learn more about the random. But where to continue I do not know. Maybe you have some tips? Or someone else...

So the problem we had before with people disrupting the posts on the forum I think have stopped. Now its more easier to read about roulette and that is we all here for. How do we beat a fascinating game like this. That is the question  O0

- Tuddilue
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Dec 30, 04:33 AM 2016
Random means no possible change in odds. It might mean even spread of results in the long term but that DOES NOT HELP AT ALL.

Its easy to know. Just keep testing. If the system eventually tanks then you were wrong. 

Turbo specifically said he is not speaking in riddles.

He is posing questions that I'm answering. Turbo, perhaps post here because I'm interested in discussing this in an open manner for everyone's benefit, and i can answer correctly. This forum is back to productive discussion.

At one stage i thought as most people here. Then i learned. Im trying to help people understand why you can only beat roulette by changing odds. Its really a simple concept but most people are stuck in wrong thought patterns.

A primary problem is thinking progression is anything but different size wagers on different spins with the same odds.

Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: denzie on Dec 30, 04:40 AM 2016
If I'm not mistaken. ...I think TG knows how to code. So he probably let it run for millions of spins already. So he should know the outcome of what's gonna happen in the future for his system.

Just mention it  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: tuddilue on Dec 30, 07:13 AM 2016
Random means no possible change in odds. It might mean even spread of results in the long term but that DOES NOT HELP AT ALL.

Its easy to know. Just keep testing. If the system eventually tanks then you were wrong. 

Turbo specifically said he is not speaking in riddles.

He is posing questions that I'm answering. Turbo, perhaps post here because I'm interested in discussing this in an open manner for everyone's benefit, and i can answer correctly. This forum is back to productive discussion.

At one stage i thought as most people here. Then i learned. Im trying to help people understand why you can only beat roulette by changing odds. Its really a simple concept but most people are stuck in wrong thought patterns.

A primary problem is thinking progression is anything but different size wagers on different spins with the same odds.
Yes I agree on the random part. But I think it is more into the random than that.

Yes riddles maybe is a wrong word but what I mean is he tries to explain but how he explains becomes riddles for people who doesn't understand  :smile:

I think a better way can be to explain it with help of 37 spin cycles and actual spin numbers with comments of how to think. I do not want a step by step explanation. More how to think and how to handle the random. I even doesn't know if it possible to do. But for the average player it should be graspable.

But for starters you two need to be here and start to discuss. Would be interesting but is it doable I do not know...
- Tuddilue
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Dec 30, 07:27 AM 2016
Turbo did you code in rx and test millions of spins yet?

Lets not do this multiple forum thing. Please discuss here
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: TurboGenius on Dec 30, 04:14 PM 2016
Hi Steve - I haven't honestly been looking at other forums aside from the one where I'm at now...
and didn't want to get into posting the same thing in multiple places - but I'll try to comment here along with "there" because I think it's good for everyone.
I can recreate the same style thread here with you as the person to verify what I say - but doing both places at the same time might mean a delay in replying.

Turbo, answers below:

1. The house edge (odds vs payout) apply to each spin independently, not a group of spins. But it is still often expressed over a group of spins, like say 37 spins ( eu wheel ). The problem with looking at groups of spins is you get stuck thinking you in any way changed the odds.

2. I dont understand what you are saying in this point. But two players with a combined result is just a bunch of independent results.

What youve said is not quite accurate. Its like stating an average rainfall amount each month. Knowing it still doesnt tell you if it will rain tomorrow. And even if guessed correctly it rained tomorrow, the rain god might say "tricked ya" and change his mind so you are guaranteed to be wrong at least one guess each month. The house edge is similar.

My point in that first post was to show and explain that the house edge is made up of a total of all players and all bets. The two players that I picked out to use for example (one did above expected and one did below expected) had two different results obviously,  the casino however - had the same house edge in the end because it factors all players and all results.
There was no real method or system at work here - all players (38) simply flat bet every spin on their own number. Combined, they lost at exactly the house edge.

Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Dec 30, 04:21 PM 2016
Hi, the expectation of loss or amount of wins for each number on average is predictable but not to the point where the next spins odds are changed.

The house edge comes from the odds vs payout for an individual spin. So i disagree with you on this point but maybe let's keep moving anyway
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: TurboGenius on Dec 30, 04:36 PM 2016
The house edge comes from the odds vs payout for an individual spin. So i disagree with you on this point

That is true - but it also matches up exactly with the combination of all player's bets over a period of time - the house edge still remains at 5.26% (as I showed with the "summary statistics" graphic.)
So one spin - one player - the house edge is the same.
38 spins for 3 cycles of spins with 38 players betting every spin ? - the house edge is the same.
It doesn't change based on who bets where, or what player won or what player lost..
Most of the players individually don't end the 3 cycles with -5.26% result - some are above that, some are below that - the house though got exactly what it was expecting from all players combined results.
My point was that 1 spin or a group of spins - a winning player or a losing player - the house has it's edge when these are combined.
This should be a good argument for the "anti-system" people because they can point to the math and say "See ? Just because someone won 7 times - it doesn't mean anything because the other players lost and the overall result was a win for the house - and maybe the next 3 cycles of spins that winning player won't win again" or etc etc. That would be a reasonable argument at this point. That "long term" (much more than a measly 3 cycles of spins) this player will be doomed to sit at -5.26% with everyone else.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: RouletteGhost on Dec 30, 05:01 PM 2016
The forum back and forth stuff is so childish. Just post here lol
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Dec 30, 05:34 PM 2016
Turbo, ok lets move to the next question.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Dec 30, 07:54 PM 2016
You already have 2 trolling your thread on gf. Won't happen here. If u prefer ask mike to focus here too.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: TurboGenius on Dec 30, 08:11 PM 2016
I can deal with it. I'm sure at some point the thread will be cleaned up.
I'll copy/paste - it will save me some typing time lol.
---------------------------------
The next post is about what happens when the players (instead of flat betting their number every spin) decide to use a system based on repeaters.
Here are the same spins - the same players - still flat betting only on their number.
The only difference is that each player begins betting on their number only once it shows.
So here are the results to compare to the last 3 cycles. We haven't even put in a progression yet - the only thing that is different is that they are playing for a repeat to happen on their number (and they won't remove their bets - they'll just start betting their number once it shows and then every spin after that until the end of the 3 cycles)
This is the data for all players combined (the house edge from the last test was exactly 5.26% as it should be)
-------------------------------------
So ALL players ended as a group EVEN. The house edge 0.00 !
This is a fact - it is not trickery or curve fitting, or reverse engineering - it is simply how random works.
We are still at the basic level here. 2,808 bets of $1.00 each were placed - that's a pretty good amount
considering each bet from each player was only $1.00 flat betting every spin.

I want to also now look at the two examples from above - player 4 and player 10.

Player 4 had to sacrifice 1 win and ended with 6 wins instead of 7.
Player 4 ended with a balance of +$109.00
Player 10 NEVER lost a bet. Player 10 ended even at +- $.00
As compared to the last set of 3 cycles - Player 4 had won $138.00 and now has $109.00
Player 10 had LOST $114.00 and has now lost $0.00
By only adding this fist basic step of each player betting their number after it appears (and from then on)
The group ended EVEN - The house edge 0.00%. 2,808 bets were placed after 114 spins and the house edge was 0.

Truth ? Of course. More to come.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Dec 30, 08:34 PM 2016
The method of bet selection is unclear. Pls elaborate or give simple examples.

I cant comment much until i fully understand what you mean
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: TurboGenius on Dec 30, 09:25 PM 2016
The method of bet selection is unclear. Pls elaborate or give simple examples.

I cant comment much until i fully understand what you mean

In the first example - each player 1-38 is betting 1.00 per spin on their own number.
They bet for 3 cycles of spins and in the end - the house edge is (as expected).
In the second example - the house edge is 0% and the winning players still win. The only difference between the two is that in the second case there is a "system" at work which states that a player only bets once their number shows.
2,808 bets were placed and in the end the house edge was 0% and as a group the players lost nothing.
As compared to the first example where they all ended at the house edge of -228 units lost. (5.26%)
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Dec 30, 10:16 PM 2016
In the first example - each player 1-38 is betting 1.00 per spin on their own number.
They bet for 3 cycles of spins and in the end - the house edge is (as expected).
In the second example - the house edge is 0% and the winning players still win. The only difference between the two is that in the second case there is a "system" at work which states that a player only bets once their number shows.
2,808 bets were placed and in the end the house edge was 0% and as a group the players lost nothing.
As compared to the first example where they all ended at the house edge of -228 units lost. (5.26%)

How is each of their numbers selected? And whats a cycle of spins?
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: tuddilue on Dec 31, 02:02 AM 2016
How is each of their numbers selected? And whats a cycle of spins?
Interesting reading!
Turbo stated it in post 7.
Each number = own number of choice.
Cycle of spins = 38 numbers.
Please continue.
- Tuddilue
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Dec 31, 03:36 AM 2016
Ok understood, pls continue
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: TurboGenius on Dec 31, 08:49 AM 2016
The next post is about a comment that what happens to a group of players isn't relevant really to a single individual.. So basically the group of people ended their 3 cycles of spins "even" (the house won nothing) but that this wasn't relevant to a single person playing.
----------------------------
This is a little ahead of where I want to be but lets cover this now since you brought it up.
I'll consider this Post 3 in the thread on my part.

Player A flat bets one number every spin (that's his/her system for whatever reason) lets say #1
Player B flat bets 3 numbers every spin (according to "their" method/system) lets say #3,#4,#5
Player C flat bets A and B's numbers every spin (#1,#3,#4,#5)
There is no difference between the "group" of A and B's results vs the results of C.
Player C is basically where we're going here - and in the next post I can close the "loop" of these 3 posts.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: TurboGenius on Jan 01, 01:30 PM 2017
The next post was about how things aren't being judged equally - how the players in the second run of 3 cycles bet less spins and played less units overall so it's not fair to judge the results against one another.
------------------------------------------------------------
But it is.
We already know what happens when each player equally bets all spins equally for the same number of spins.
It ends at the house edge perfectly as it should. The group loses at the house edge (exactly)
The means of using a system or method which states x,y or z means that each player isn't betting equally anymore. So for the house - it gained nothing - the losing player #10 lost nothing. The winners still won (aside from the first potential win they missed out on).
So we know that this equality among all players produces exactly what is expected. And we know that this group playing a "repeater" style method for these 3 cycles managed to end even and not where the math says they should.
====
We could add spins - or make each player bet the same number of spins overall.. or maybe stop when they have all bet the same amount ? There are lots of ways to force the group to bet equally (but we already know what happens - they end as a group at the house edge as expected). And betting equally isn't what a system is all about in the first place. It's about doing something specific in an effort to change the end result from negative to positive.
When we implement this "repeater" style method/system though - now we have players that begin betting for some specific reason and the results have changed.

It would be a good analogy to compare this to any experiment where you have a control group (the first post) which shows what "doing nothing" results in - vs the experiment where things are changed that affect the outcome. If we force both groups to do things equally - then there's no point in the experiment and the results will be the same.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: RouletteGhost on Jan 01, 02:55 PM 2017
Turbo I'm currently enroute to harahs from Long Island

Be there at 5

Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: TurboGenius on Jan 01, 03:00 PM 2017
Enjoy !
I was supposed to go to Parx today - but it appears that it may end up being tomorrow.

Your path will bring you pretty damn close to where I live lol.
I'll put on coffee just in case.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: RouletteGhost on Jan 01, 03:11 PM 2017
Lol

Spontaneous trip. One night

Room was 150
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Jan 05, 11:43 PM 2017
The next post is about a comment that what happens to a group of players isn't relevant really to a single individual..

Correct, there is no connection.

Player A flat bets one number every spin (that's his/her system for whatever reason) lets say #1
Player B flat bets 3 numbers every spin (according to "their" method/system) lets say #3,#4,#5
Player C flat bets A and B's numbers every spin (#1,#3,#4,#5)
There is no difference between the "group" of A and B's results vs the results of C.
Player C is basically where we're going here - and in the next post I can close the "loop" of these 3 posts.

This is just a variety of different bets. It doesnt matter who makes them.

We could add spins - or make each player bet the same number of spins overall.. or maybe stop when they have all bet the same amount ?

I dont see how this would make any difference. If there are multiple players, at some stage they might have wagered the same amount. But there is still no connection.

When we implement this "repeater" style method/system though - now we have players that begin betting for some specific reason and the results have changed.

How will the results have changed if the accuracy of bet selection is still no better than random?

Random is still random if there's an expectation of 1 in 37 hit for single number bet. There might be different approaches for bet selection, and different accuracy for a specific group of spins, but it is still just random.

I'm not sure where you're leading with this but I'm still following what you post.


Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: TurboGenius on Jan 06, 05:17 PM 2017
Well, to recap then (here).

Part 1 all players bet every spin for 3 cycles of spins and ended at the house edge (as expected).
Part 2 all players bet only when their number showed for the first time - they ended even and the house edge was 0.00%. Same number of spins and same bet amount per spin.
So this was to show that using a method based on repeaters changed the outcome.
There is of course debate that the comparison isn't fair because all variables were not equal (which would make no sense really - and it would not be a system/method anymore and the results would have been the same for both tests).
So then I attempted to explain that a "group" or players or a single player betting the same numbers as the group would make no difference (true.)
That past spins mean nothing (because they don't). That single player can play from the first spin and the history board isn't used. This also avoids virtual bets or "triggers" so to speak - they are simply betting the numbers as they appear.
Part 2 (test results) showed that the player who lost because their number never showed has been eliminated since now they haven't bet (or lost anything). The player who won the most only missed out on one win because he wasn't playing that number until it appeared (which of course could have been spin #1 when you consider the big picture).

So to continue (since I'm pretty sure no one disagrees with this so far ?) I will get into how the math of the game changes due to what happened in Part 2.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: buffalowizard on Jan 06, 06:58 PM 2017
But aren't you making the assumption that a number will show up sooner if it has already just hit?
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: denzie on Jan 06, 07:24 PM 2017
I will get into how the math of the game changes due to what happened in Part 2.

And how it can create a gap up to 1000 spins to reach a new high bank roll .  ;)
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: TurboGenius on Jan 06, 08:00 PM 2017
But aren't you making the assumption that a number will show up sooner if it has already just hit?

Absolutely not.
A number appearing doesn't mean that the time that it takes to appear again will be anything other than what it would normally be. It could be the next spin - or hundreds of spins. So no assumptions here, and that has nothing to do with where I'm going with this.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: tuddilue on Jan 10, 03:29 PM 2017
How about the third step?  How do you want to continue @turbo?
Thanks..
- Tuddilue
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: denzie on Jan 26, 03:29 PM 2017
We're ready for the next step....  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: jefra on Jan 27, 03:17 AM 2017
TG in my opinion gave up. Maybe he lost a session (as he said he will visit casinos in January)  :(
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: denzie on Jan 27, 05:14 AM 2017
TG in my opinion gave up. Maybe he lost a session (as he said he will visit casinos in January)  :(

Every method loses sometimes. As long it isn't frequently it's all good. It's actually pretty hard to not be in profit each session. As long the progression is used wisely. Progressions need to be applied over time. Use the math each spin and calculate if and when it's necessary to use it. Many sessions I don't even need to use one.

The trick is to reset on time or your "group" could turn cold. Not sure if I play as TG does but I'm sure I'm pretty damn close.

I'm done within 2 cycles mostly
Also don't use a progression that recovers losses in 1 hit. Let's aim for couple of hits.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Jan 27, 05:48 AM 2017
My rng systems win most of the time in say 200 spins. It's what happens when they lose that makes reality obvious.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: ignatus on Jan 27, 06:26 AM 2017
My rng systems win most of the time in say 200 spins. It's what happens when they lose that makes reality obvious.

Problem with roulette is to increase the accuracy of prediction (as you use to say) why don't you give us some hints about your betselections? Is the wheel-bet/wheel-sectors/wheel-predictions the only way?
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Jan 27, 06:30 AM 2017
I've said it all many times.  See my past posts. I try to help but most people aren't interested to understand why i say certain things.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: ignatus on Jan 27, 06:33 AM 2017
I've said it all many times.  See my past posts. I try to help but most people aren't interested to understand why i say certain things.

I read what you said, but then we can all give up the carpet and concentrate on the wheel?
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: denzie on Jan 27, 06:40 AM 2017
I read what you said, but then we can all give up the carpet and concentrate on the wheel?

That's an easy one. YES.
The carpet is there to place our bets on only. It has no other purpose.

Inside bets only !
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Jan 27, 06:42 AM 2017
The betting table has as much to do about the winning number as my tv.

The most obvious is focus on what determines the winning number. The variables like wheel. My system correlates variables and spin outcomes which is the most logical approach. What could be more logical than cause and effect??

But maybe you can focus on other methods of bet selection. Chaos theory, precog, who knows. Just not progression and the usual stuff.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: ignatus on Jan 27, 06:44 AM 2017
ok thx
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Jan 27, 06:55 AM 2017
Roulette is a game of illusion. You'd be surprised. Once it's understood, winning is not at all difficult. It's then more about time and avoiding detection.

You cant beat every wheel but you don't need to for it to be practical. Just like not every investment or business venture will be profitable.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: TurboGenius on Jan 27, 07:09 AM 2017
TG in my opinion gave up. Maybe he lost a session (as he said he will visit casinos in January)  :(

For starters - as I said - it "can't" lose and therefore it hasn't lost.
The math prevents it from losing. I'm pretty sure that I made that clear a long time ago.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: ignatus on Jan 27, 07:13 AM 2017
hahaha what a joker ;D ;D ;D  :twisted:  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: jefra on Jan 27, 12:09 PM 2017
TG, if you play airball machines, then all can be possible!!!  Even loss of your "Holy Grail" system.  Even Steve can lose with his RNG system on airballs ;-)
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: jefra on Jan 27, 12:23 PM 2017
Denzie;
If you think that TG waits on 12 numbers that has not came out in a cycle, and then bet on them and use a progression on those numbers; then I think that you are wrong.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: jefra on Jan 27, 12:27 PM 2017
Of course, a system CANNOT lose only if a player has unlimited bankroll ;-)
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: amk on Jan 27, 01:07 PM 2017
Turbo,

How many spins can your progression go and still be able to attain a positive result?
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: denzie on Jan 27, 07:15 PM 2017
@Jefra...

I'm really not talking about 12 numbers at all... I just tested that one.....

I'm currently playing a method about everything TG said. .... with great success...

It toke me sometime to figure it out. ....but I found it  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Jan 27, 08:12 PM 2017
You have the hg denzie?

One system is no better than another because it's all random accuracy betting. Same odds, same payouts, same thing.

 I want to be proven wrong.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: RouletteGhost on Jan 27, 08:16 PM 2017
My opinion

Turbo has it

He doesn't have to lie or need to lie

He bets repeaters

In and of itself that is the Hg

37 spins cycles you will have numbers that hit 3 to 4 times

So when a number hits twice start betting it

I guess bankroll and patience is required
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: thelaw on Jan 27, 08:44 PM 2017
Remember........here is a thread that Turbogenius started with links to his best systems:

http://www.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=17157.msg158555#msg158555

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Everything from my site (now closed)

1 unit per visit :
https://web.archive.org/web/20121104154420/http://www.freewebs.com/turbogenius/1unitpervisit.htm

10 percent method modified :
https://web.archive.org/web/20121104154717/http://www.freewebs.com/turbogenius/10percentmodified.htm

123 Turbo Street :
https://web.archive.org/web/20121104170849/http://www.freewebs.com/turbogenius/123turbostreet.htm

3 Streets System :
https://web.archive.org/web/20130928030616/http://www.freewebs.com/turbogenius/3streetssystem.htm

456 Turbo Street : (was on the site I was admin at - had never gotten it to my website)
https://web.archive.org/web/20080208175815/http://gambling.projectsydney.com/viewtopic.php?t=598

4 Spin Sequence Method :
https://web.archive.org/web/20120919025639/http://www.freewebs.com/turbogenius/4spinsequencesystem.htm

50 Max :
https://web.archive.org/web/20121104162233/http://www.freewebs.com/turbogenius/50max.htm

5 Spin Progression Method :
https://web.archive.org/web/20120825153413/http://www.freewebs.com/turbogenius/5spinprogression.htm

6 Streets :
https://web.archive.org/web/20120919030520/http://www.freewebs.com/turbogenius/6streetssystem.htm

Abacus Roulette : (was on the site I was admin at - had never gotten it to my website)
https://web.archive.org/web/20071223004620/http://gambling.projectsydney.com/viewtopic.php?t=860

Hot vs Cold testing :
https://web.archive.org/web/20120819000604/http://www.freewebs.com/turbogenius/anotherhotcoldtest.htm

Farthest Back Method :
https://web.archive.org/web/20120924001343/http://www.freewebs.com/turbogenius/farthestback.htm

Law of 3rd for streets method :
https://web.archive.org/web/20120919025509/http://www.freewebs.com/turbogenius/lawof3rdstreets.htm

Million in May system for 2 to 1 bets :
https://web.archive.org/web/20120924001348/http://www.freewebs.com/turbogenius/mimfor2to1.htm

Million in May for streets :
https://web.archive.org/web/20120924002439/http://www.freewebs.com/turbogenius/mimforstreets.htm

+3 / -1 Progression :
https://web.archive.org/web/20121104151945/http://www.freewebs.com/turbogenius/plus3minus1progression.htm

Underdog Sleeper System :
https://web.archive.org/web/20121104162243/http://www.freewebs.com/turbogenius/underdogsleepers.htm

Possible Holy Grail idea :
https://web.archive.org/web/20121031122207/http://www.freewebs.com/turbogenius/possibleholygrail.htm

Raindrops Method and comments :
https://web.archive.org/web/20120813230436/http://www.freewebs.com/turbogenius/raindropscomments.htm

Supporting Bets and comments :
https://web.archive.org/web/20120409022530/http://www.freewebs.com/turbogenius/supportingbets.htm

Predicting a trend / win :
https://web.archive.org/web/20120915130433/http://www.freewebs.com/turbogenius/trendwinprediction.htm

Turbo's 35 unit method :
https://web.archive.org/web/20120915134635/http://www.freewebs.com/turbogenius/turbos35unitmethod.htm

Turbo's Equalizer method :
https://web.archive.org/web/20120813225008/http://www.freewebs.com/turbogenius/turbosequalizer.htm

Another repeater method :
https://web.archive.org/web/20140410082741/http://www.freewebs.com/turbogenius/anotherrepeatermethod.htm

Another great progression :
https://web.archive.org/web/20130810135708/http://www.freewebs.com/turbogenius/agreatprogression.htm
 
I have yet to see Turbo come out and retract any of these systems. Solid.

Cheers!  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Jan 27, 11:28 PM 2017
If these systems don't change the odds or payouts, then how are they different from random bets of varying size?
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Jan 27, 11:30 PM 2017
Repeaters don't change odds. Ive tested probably trillions of rng spins with automated software. Repeaters are normal statistical probability.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Jan 27, 11:31 PM 2017
Turbo what's the next step?
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: jefra on Jan 28, 12:57 AM 2017

Denzie

It is really not a new system how Turbo plays. Out there were a few similar systems and all failed soon or later. So testing a systems on a few hundreds or even thousands spins proves nothing. And even worse is to test them on past spins. Many systems worked nice on history spins, BUT when player go in casino and start to play in live, then all changes and reality can be painful.

Why do you think that experienced players, like are Steve, Caleb, Mr.J,... all not believe in systems and progressions? Because all such a systems with progressions fail soon or later.

I exactly know how TG plays, got a same graph, made a tests of several thousand spins, played in online casinos for free and system worked so-so. BUT when tried it playing on airball machines, then a system failed, and I did not use any wild progression at all, but TG uses so damn dangerous progression that would kill every player because no one has unlimited bankroll. BUT TG claims that he never cannot lose with it. If you want to talk more, then you can write me: jefra02e@gmail.com. Do not try to email TG because he is ignoring them, I tried 5x and now I give up.

 
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: denzie on Jan 28, 03:54 AM 2017
You have the hg denzie?

One system is no better than another because it's all random accuracy betting. Same odds, same payouts, same thing.

 I want to be proven wrong.

Oh hell no. I don't have the hg. But it does wins a lot more than it loses.  :)

So far.......
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: denzie on Jan 28, 03:58 AM 2017
@jefra...

I've been playing airball a lot. And for me it gives the same results as live dealer or rng. The same "events" happen at the same time. No difference there at all.

Well that's my opinion of course.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: nottophammer on Jan 28, 05:14 AM 2017
@jefra...

I've been playing airball a lot. And for me it gives the same results as live dealer or rng. The same "events" happen at the same time. No difference there at all.

Well that's my opinion of course. Thumbs up
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: jefra on Jan 28, 05:40 AM 2017
yes, they work similar, until they don't   ;)
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Jan 28, 06:28 AM 2017

Why do you think that experienced players, like are Steve, Caleb, Mr.J,... all not believe in systems and progressions?


Ive never seen anything to suggest ken is an expert at anything other than blaming others for his life, backstabbing, trolling, petty behavior, blatant malicious lies, digging a deeper grave, and making a dickhead of himself. Im far from convinced his secret "method" is anything but talk. His experience with roulette is how to lose. Not how to win. His purpose on forums is to troll to make hinself feel superior and better about himself. If you dont see him for what he is, look closer. Maybe one day Ill show some conversations, if he wants. He seems to.

Denzie, many systems can survive 10,000+ spins. But having a system that aims to win just in your lifetime is fallacy. When the odds dont change, all you are left with is the equivalent of lots of different people all making random bets of difference size. If that beat roulette, the game wouldnt be in casinos. Nevertheless if it works for tou, keep doing it. But dont be surprised if a bad night wipes out all wins and more. You might be one of the lucky ones who stops before the losing run. For some, that run is on day 1.

There is absolutely no way around it. To beat roulette without relying on plain luck, you must increase accuracy of predictions. This is really basic stuff. Anyone interested in serious play needs to understand why. In the professional gaming community, this basic knowledge isnt even a question. Its just known fact, like the water being wet. On most forums, understanding of the fundamentals is rare.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: maestro on Jan 28, 07:00 AM 2017
Quote
experienced players, like are Steve, Caleb, Mr.J
      , :twisted:  says who...
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: maestro on Jan 28, 07:14 AM 2017
once old friend told me >gambling is like a tatto once you get it you cannot get it out but you have to live with it but good thing about it is that tatto is personal means something for you so is way of play,you might not like mine or vice versa but i could not care less...so dont trash Turbo let him explain if he wants if not fair enough...
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: jefra on Jan 28, 07:24 AM 2017
Maestro, I have nothing against Turbo, just opposite, I think he is good guy, but only one thing piss me off and it is that he insists that a system CANNOT lose!!  Every system can lose and will lose IF player does not have unlimited bankroll ;-)
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: jefra on Jan 28, 07:28 AM 2017
Steve, I cannot comment about Ken, but from what I read I think that he plays still much smarter as many other players. He plays very few numbers and he is against all sort of progressions, so this is a good approach for system players ;-)
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: denzie on Jan 28, 07:37 AM 2017
Ive never seen anything to suggest ken is an expert at anything other than blaming others for his life, backstabbing, trolling, petty behavior, blatant malicious lies, digging a deeper grave, and making a dickhead of himself. Im far from convinced his secret "method" is anything but talk. His experience with roulette is how to lose. Not how to win. His purpose on forums is to troll to make hinself feel superior and better about himself. If you dont see him for what he is, look closer. Maybe one day Ill show some conversations, if he wants. He seems to.


Agreed 100%   :thumbsup:
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Jan 28, 07:42 AM 2017
Betting more or fewer numbers doesnt make a difference in the long term. Generally results are more predictable if you bet more numbers (in the short term).

There's a lot of talk about overcoming variance. But it still doesnt change anything. Variance is not being understood.

Basically the difference is a slow predictable drain with lots of bets and smaller profits on wins, OR a slow predictable drain with fewer bets but with rare big lucky wins. In the long term there's no difference at all. People are missing what's actually required to beat the game, and why.

I have no idea about Turbo except that I dont find his claims believable, and some of his statements are incorrect. BUT I have an open mind as always, and am listening. I believe he has good intentions, but I think ultimate he has made a mistake. If I'm wrong, I will have no problem admitting I was mistaken. I take pride in being able to swallow my pride and admit when I've made a mistake. But in this case its not at all about pride. If I'm wrong, I get to learn something perhaps I could use. If I'm right, then nothing changes for me.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: denzie on Jan 28, 07:44 AM 2017

Denzie, many systems can survive 10,000+ spins. Nevertheless if it works for tou, keep doing it. But dont be surprised if a bad night wipes out all wins and more. You might be one of the lucky ones who stops before the losing run. For some, that run is on day 1.

Steve I'm more than aware of that. Even 10000 is nothing. Been seeing 100000+ till it goes down .

Of course I'm gonna keep going as long it keeps winning. Would be stupid not to. And I know those horrible sessions are out there. You might get a few of those in a row. But I recover those sessions in 1 or max 2 sessions. And that's not to bad. Time will tell.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: TurboGenius on Jan 28, 09:46 AM 2017
People are missing what's actually required to beat the game, and why.

Repeaters don't change odds. Ive tested probably trillions of rng spins with automated software. Repeaters are normal statistical probability.

Repeaters actually do change the odds - as I said on the other forum (not sure if I can repeat that here with copy/paste) the charts show how you have a 1:38 chance of winning on any individual spin because there are 38 possible winning numbers (numbers that could win if bet on) and the payout is 35:1
When you play repeaters (the third show of any number for example) you no longer have 38 possible winning numbers - you have a small hand full of numbers that are the only ones that can win.
Since we know (as you've said) that repeaters will happen - we already know what numbers to play.
Perhaps that's one simple thing that people are missing ?
I kept saying - 38 numbers won't show in 38 spins, a single number won't repeat 38 times.
Therefore we no longer have 38 possible winning numbers to choose from. We end up with less possible winning numbers vs the house payout and gain the advantage.
I charted this in detail to show the reader how the math of the game changes.
"IF" there was a reliable chance that 38 numbers would show in 38 spins - this game would be impossible to beat, but that doesn't happen. This is random. Even random follows rules. Random is predictable.
That predictable outcome puts the game in the player's favor and not the house.
(If it were not random it would be impossible to win).
This is all what I've said over and over - perhaps it's not sinking in properly.
A aggressive progression is also key - Once the player has the game in their favor, it only makes sense to use a aggressive progression to increase bankroll and make up for those times when random throws that unfavorable cycle of spins at you.
So - you can't win unless you can predict outcomes better than 1:38 ? You can. You can predict outcomes at such a rate that you can't lose. (yes, I said that.)
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: thelaw on Jan 28, 09:54 AM 2017
Quote
I kept saying - 38 numbers won't show in 38 spins, a single number won't repeat 38 times.

(https://media.tenor.co/images/9981e88294200178cd4225d895bed728/raw)

That's heavy...... :thumbsup:
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: falkor2k15 on Jan 28, 09:58 AM 2017
Let's say we have:
7 numbers = 1 appearance
30 number = 0 appearance

I still think is equal probability for any to appear next. If we are betting for a repeat then the 7 numbers are already well on their way to completing that event. So we can predict repeaters based on what stage they are at in terms of appearances, but that doesn't mean we can profit. It just means we are confirming the obvious: if something is "1 up" then it's closer to "2 up" than those that are still at 0 appearances.

The only advantage of repeaters seems to be that we can reduce the wide swings of variance?
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: RouletteGhost on Jan 28, 10:00 AM 2017
Ok so In 37 spin cycles we most likely will have a repeater or several repeaters hit a total of 3 or more times

That's not in any way an aggressive progression

You are only betting a few numbers

Progression would be mild at best?

Even if you lost a 37 spin cycle you will win the next one

But the was I see numbers come in, every cycle has a threepeater at least
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Jan 28, 10:10 AM 2017
Turbo youre quite incorrect. Theres no law that ensures there won't be 38 numbers in 38 spins.  The law of a third is basic probability in that most of the time there will be repeats. But this doesn't help because you never know which will repeat. Your bet selection still has random odds.

The proof is test trillions of spins and you'll find 38 numbers in 38 spins does happen. And it's exactly as rare as any other combination of numbers in 38 spins. Thats including 0 spinning 38 times consecutively. Theres no point to argue it. My free software can do the testing and anyone can test.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: maestro on Jan 28, 10:31 AM 2017
38 numbers in 38 spins never happen...do zelions of test it will not get it..unless is rigged one
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: maestro on Jan 28, 10:36 AM 2017
Quote
"IF" there was a reliable chance that 38 numbers would show in 38 spins - this game would be impossible to beat, but that doesn't happen
    ...i think this is wrong if roulette produce 38 uniques every 38 spin cycle then would be nice as you will know for sure that whatever hit s say in first dozen it will not hit again say..
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: adamr123 on Jan 28, 11:16 AM 2017
I agree with you that it could happen 38 in 38 spins, but probability not high. lets be honest anything could happen in 38 spins. What if you are playing sections of numbers same applies? bit higher probability? .... yes of course. what if the average is enough to overcome all sections hitting one after another? what if 3 wins of high probability overcomes the loss of one low progression and with either win or lose the next round begins in a few spins using new data. the odds of win are reset and in the event of a loss from previous result, the continuation of a loss event is stoped in it's tracts and the cycle begins again.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: denzie on Jan 28, 11:44 AM 2017
    ...i think this is wrong if roulette produce 38 uniques every 38 spin cycle then would be nice as you will know for sure that whatever hit s say in first dozen it will not hit again say..

If the pay out stayed the same...yep
But they would change the pay out every spin.....then big nope
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: rouletteKEY on Jan 28, 12:17 PM 2017
to argue about 38 unique or 38 0's or whatever isn't really adding anything to the conversation

can it happen...sure...anything can happen at any given spin...thought everyone was in agreement on that already

it is however statistically insignificant to even really approach that type of scenario and a stoploss kills the bleeding and a little trend analysis makes a ton of loot if by chance you see the once in a kajillion spins session happening and identify it quick enough to profit or stop the losses accordingly

with decent bet selection (doesn't have to be stellar) and solid play (stop losses, negative and positive progressions) money is made at roulette

too many people fail due to emotions and human nature by either being hurried, greed or not having the guts to make the bets that their research and experience say need to be made

bankroll is the thing most people neglect to talk about enough...you need to have enough in your pocket and at home to play with confidence and stay in the game when you have a working strategy....you have to have the whole game to win... think of the casino side and why they usually win

casino has payout edge...seemingly inexhaustible bankroll and table limits...their discipline is set within the rules...their greed is regulated by the rules (they can't make you make smaller or larger bets except what they dictate as mins and max within their own rules)...the wheel will keep spinning all day and all night (no hurry)

player has control of when, where and how much to bet within the scope of their own bankroll and table limits

add discipline to alot of experience and well thought out play...take away greed and haste...add a substantial player bankroll...this player has the real advantage regardless of the 5.26%...take away any of the players tools and the 5.26 might as well be 100

get a substantial bankroll that you aren't afraid to risk

really research what generally happens across a spectrum of plays that all have recoverability

put safeguards in to protect against a series of uncharacteristic circumstances

play within your bankroll enough to be okay with winning small to avoid losing big

always be in position to recognize and capitalize on semi-predictable waves of occurrences with a multitude of off-setting and complementary simultaneous running bets with the aforementioned good recoverability

win a bunch of small battles to win each daily war

regardless of how little or much time that takes

that's my two cents
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: nottophammer on Jan 28, 12:32 PM 2017
that's my two cents
Didn't waste my time reading the reply, all good words  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: falkor2k15 on Jan 28, 02:39 PM 2017
Discipline won't get you anywhere unless you have a real strategy behind it - it will simply delay the inevitable at the rate of chips you are risking for whatever return. Everything will break even or lose the house advantage unless using specific concepts designed to work around variance. Short term is best to cover most of the board, but you might get killed off instantly. Long term is best to bet small, and you might win big at the start. Either way you are heading towards the house advantage the longer you play. So discipline cannot help long term. I think a lot of people don't realise this because they don't practise using simulators.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: RouletteGhost on Jan 28, 02:46 PM 2017
In cycles we will have numbers that hit three times correct?
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: denzie on Jan 28, 03:43 PM 2017
Didn't waste my time reading the reply, all good words  :thumbsup:

Yup  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: denzie on Jan 28, 03:44 PM 2017
In cycles we will have numbers that hit three times correct?

Yes...most cycles.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: RouletteGhost on Jan 28, 03:49 PM 2017
Ok then that is the HG

When a number hits twice that's your trigger

Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: denzie on Jan 28, 03:55 PM 2017
Ok then that is the HG

When a number hits twice that's your trigger

If only it was that easy  :o
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Jan 28, 04:06 PM 2017
The point is still being missed.  38 numbers in 38 spins is as rare as any other combination. Thinking you can bet based on incredibly rare events is fallacy.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: RouletteGhost on Jan 28, 04:24 PM 2017
eveyone gets your point steve

i think we are passed that

in our life times we wont see 38 numbers in 38 spins it is not practical
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: TurboGenius on Jan 28, 06:19 PM 2017
But this doesn't help because you never know which will repeat. Your bet selection still has random odds.

I don't need to know what specific number is going to hit or when.
I only need to choose my numbers and win at a better rate than 1:38 (or X:38 based on how many numbers I'm playing at the time).
We agreed that you can't win unless you can do better than 1:38 and using repeaters which WILL happen - So we don't have 38 possibilities to bet on - the longer we play, the shorter the list of possible winners become... and I don't need to know exactly which one and when do I ? No.....
I only need to know (common sense thread at the other forum) what numbers to play and what numbers not to play. If a number hasn't shown yet - it's very quite possibly a long term sleeper. If a number has appeared (not past spins - since I started my play) then it's obviously a potential repeater.
A number can't show 2 times unless it's shown once, it can't show 3 times unless it's shown 2 times...........
You'll get it - it will click and you'll say "That F'in Turbo was right".
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: TurboGenius on Jan 28, 06:22 PM 2017
it is however statistically insignificant to even really approach that type of scenario and a stoploss kills the bleeding and a little trend analysis makes a ton of loot if by chance you see the once in a kajillion spins session happening and identify it quick enough to profit or stop the losses accordingly


My point is the opposite - which is what you agree with.
By playing repeaters, I am putting my money of the fact that repeaters WILL happen (not betting when I think that rare event is going to happen where all numbers show in one cycle - because we all know (don't we ?) that isn't going to happen in any of our lifetimes)
Once you know what NOT to bet on - you can clearly see what to bet on.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: TurboGenius on Jan 28, 06:24 PM 2017
The point is still being missed.  38 numbers in 38 spins is as rare as any other combination. Thinking you can bet based on incredibly rare events is fallacy.

I'm betting against that incredibly rare event ever happening - and I will always win, because that event will never happen thanks to random.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: RouletteGhost on Jan 28, 06:38 PM 2017
100% with you

betting against 38 uniques happening in 38 spins would equate to never losing and when you do lose you will have massive porfits
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: thelaw on Jan 28, 07:13 PM 2017
After running only billions of spins......

(https://media.giphy.com/media/kHU8W94VS329y/giphy.gif)
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: RouletteGhost on Jan 28, 07:21 PM 2017
Lmao. On a roll lately
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Priyanka on Jan 28, 09:13 PM 2017
38 numbers in 38 spins is as rare as any other combination.
Steve - I think you are a little bit stuck there. You are right about the fact there. But Turbo is also talking about simple math probability. For once I agree with turbo that winning this game is in the repeaters. You don't have to know exactly where it happens, you only need to know almost where it happens to win. His statement about a number has to appear once before it can appear twice and it has to appear twice before it can appear thrice says it all. Sounds simple as it may be, it's the core of proabability and accuracy of prediction that you keep talking about. 

Turbo is not looking for patterns that are static. Even when the event happens where 38 numbers appear in 38 spins, turbo will be losing only a cycle. For him to lose, that 38 numbers appearing in 38 spins needs to happen multiple times in the same order it appeared the first time. And in the funny world of mathermatics there is a probability of that happening too
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: maestro on Jan 28, 09:24 PM 2017
even this event happen..turbo still hits simply because with 38 numbers you got 19 pairs so before 38 hits uniques happen will be full pair to hit else would be repeater
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: RouletteGhost on Jan 28, 09:52 PM 2017
It's so simple what turbo is saying

Really

This is not rocket science
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: TurboGenius on Jan 28, 10:13 PM 2017
Turbo is not looking for patterns that are static. Even when the event happens where 38 numbers appear in 38 spins, turbo will be losing only a cycle. For him to lose, that 38 numbers appearing in 38 spins needs to happen multiple times in the same order it appeared the first time.

I can't believe I'm saying this but...... thanks and you're right.

even this event happen..turbo still hits simply because with 38 numbers you got 19 pairs so before 38 hits uniques happen will be full pair to hit else would be repeater

It's even better than that - I can't lose because I'm not betting on numbers that aren't appearing.
If 38 numbers could possible show in 38 spins - I still won't have lost a single bet. I won't have even bet.
There is only one way to win at roulette - you play numbers that are appearing and don't play numbers that aren't. (see Common Sense thread). You simply can't lose on a number(s) that don't show up. You win multiple times on numbers that repeat.

Nope, not rocket science at all.
When you work it out - you'll get consistent charts like posted below in my signature. You'll actually do better because the ability to use a much more aggressive progression will simply skyrocket the chart and make mine look a bit silly.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: RouletteGhost on Jan 28, 10:25 PM 2017
Brilliant. Effing brilliant

If 38 uniques show in 38 spins there wouldn't even be a bet placed

Good lord

Bravo

Top math cats won't admit it but this is amazing. Know this
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Jan 28, 10:37 PM 2017
I perfectly understand what is being said. The problem is its incorrect. The proof is in basic testing.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: RouletteGhost on Jan 28, 10:40 PM 2017
Steve explain what is not correct

Try not to use the 38 in 38 argument cause it's never gonna happen
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Jan 28, 10:44 PM 2017
Turbo and co, what you're not understanding is there is no sequence or short term bias like you specified. Its fallacy.

How can you be sure? Test billions or trillions of spins and see. If you don't know better, you might think such a large test is a joke.  Is more data and being more sure a joke?

All that matters is the odds on the next spin. Repeaters don't change it.

Let's not argue.  Let's do some proper testing, ok?
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: RouletteGhost on Jan 28, 10:46 PM 2017
There's no fallacy here

The only fallacy is saying we don't know what the repeaters will be

Twos will become threes in cycles.

Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Jan 28, 10:48 PM 2017
Rg, the odds of any sequence of 38 spins are the same.  The wheel doesn't give a crap what spun before.

So when you base any system on a sequence of spins just because it makes sense in your own head doesn't change anything. Amy sequence happens just as often as another so the bet selection doesn't change anything.

Again, let's do some testing...
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: rouletteKEY on Jan 28, 10:51 PM 2017
Discipline won't get you anywhere unless you have a real strategy behind it - it will simply delay the inevitable at the rate of chips you are risking for whatever return. Everything will break even or lose the house advantage unless using specific concepts designed to work around variance. Short term is best to cover most of the board, but you might get killed off instantly. Long term is best to bet small, and you might win big at the start. Either way you are heading towards the house advantage the longer you play. So discipline cannot help long term. I think a lot of people don't realise this because they don't practise using simulators.

I assure you I have a real strategy and pretty disciplined...painfully so sometimes

The erosion of bankroll to the house edge is not inevitable at all and variance to a certain extent can be controlled...more so long term than short...but both have an element of control available

I have played live wheel tens of thousand of spins and they have all been written down and analyzed...live wheels...air ball...never rng  The variance can be limited to a workable number

If you simply look at the basic concept of numbers that have hit vs numbers that have slept in any given sequence you can see the raw data

Just took the top sheet off my stack of spins
38 spins
1 - 5x
1- 4x
2 -3x
5 - repeats
13 - single hits

22 numbers hit
16 with nothing

next 6 spins
5 of the 6 hits came from numbers in the last 38 spins...and 22 is on the short side of the norm because of the 5 time and 4 time hitters...so there were plenty of numbers that had not hit in now 44 spins just sitting there waiting...while somebody plays those 16 sleepers they get one hit...the guy on the 22 that had hit...5 hits

next 6 spins (against the rolling 38 previous numbers)
4 hits on previously hit numbers...2 misses

next 6 spins
again 4 hits against 2 misses

Now if I play lets say 26 numbers (to get closer to the norm for examples sake) and get 4 hits and 2 misses every six spins without money management and stoplosses I am pretty close to the HE...but I killed it upfront in the first 38 spins (I probably picked a bad example...again a 5 and a 4 hitter are a little out of ordinary but wasn't gonna grab a second sheet for times sake)

But the player using sleepers or even a random sampling of numbers not taking into account what had already hit...that player is likely getting maybe a 50/50 ratio on this particular 26 number bet (I know each 26 number bet would have different results...just looking at one example with real spins I played)...I win 67%...there's an edge regardless of whoevers head is exploding with applying a belief that because 38 unique numbers can show...that they will show

Now I personally would never play a 20-28 number bet...because there isn't enough upside...negative progression could get me in trouble quickly with just a single dry spell and positive progression isn't really feasible because of too many numbers

But...if I can concentrate on a changing rotation of 20-28 numbers to select from out of the 38 available and look at hot wheel sectors and do a little (alot actually) of analysis of how to ride the waves of numbers as they appear and repeat and have enough bankroll to see things thru

My odds are better in the long run than anyone is going to give me credit for...

add negative and positive progressions into the mix and with stringent applications of stop losses (discipline) I come around to like the math
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: rouletteKEY on Jan 28, 10:55 PM 2017

All that matters is the odds on the next spin.


Not gonna argue...but the next spin is only important to me in that it's part of a planned series of bets over a series of spins and because I am playing those spins as a group (I know it's a group of individual spins) and because I can apply stop losses and progressions I may not change the "odds" per se

But I can have a positive effect on my bankroll

Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: falkor2k15 on Jan 29, 05:57 AM 2017
rouletteKEY, the more numbers you cover the more risk for less reward - regardless of how many hits they've had in the past. Why not do a simulation over 10K spins or give me exact instructions on how you bet the numbers and I'll sim and post the results.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Jan 29, 06:12 AM 2017
Turbo, does your principle apply to rng spins, and other games? Or just roulette?
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Drazen on Jan 29, 07:48 AM 2017
Turbo and co, what you're not understanding is there is no sequence or short term bias like you specified. Its fallacy.

How can you be sure? Test billions or trillions of spins and see. If you don't know better, you might think such a large test is a joke.  Is more data and being more sure a joke?

All that matters is the odds on the next spin. Repeaters don't change it.

Let's not argue.  Let's do some proper testing, ok?

I would be really interested to know what would you accept as a good enough testing in this case?

1. For TG, Pri or anyone else who claims to have non physics HG to show you a graph where is their bet tested on 100 million or billion spins? Of course we know such graph can be manipulated without knowing what is actually done, right?

2. Or to give you publicly or in private full method in detailed steps so you can test it for yourself?

If you would vote for option 2 you might stumble onto doubt of actual chance of getting that option. I am sensing that option could be subject to some strict principles of discretion. That is only what it seems to me by following Pri-s and TG-s posts for some time. I cant think of any good reason for that personally as to be honest I dont see problem in sharing Holy just for the fact to convince otherwise one obstinate physics beatable roulette methods seller.


Cheers
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: denzie on Jan 29, 08:08 AM 2017
I would be really interested to know what would you accept as a good enough testing in this case?

1. For TG, Pri or anyone else who claims to have non physics HG to show you a graph where is their bet tested on 100 million or billion spins? Of course we know such graph can be manipulated without knowing what is actually done, right?

2. Or to give you publicly or in private full method in detailed steps so you can test it for yourself?

If you would vote for option 2 you might stumble onto doubt of actual chance of getting that option. I am sensing that option could be subject to some strict principles of discretion. That is only what it seems to me by following Pri-s and TG-s posts for some time. I cant think of any good reason for that personally as to be honest I dont see problem in sharing Holy just for the fact to convince otherwise one obstinate physics beatable roulette methods seller.


Cheers

TG is wise enough to keep it for himself. As he should. As we all should if we got it. We all know the casino's would make new rules to get the advantage back....as they did in the past already. It's just good common sense. 

Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Bettingking on Jan 29, 08:12 AM 2017
Yeah exactly Denzie now please share your HG  :lol:
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Drazen on Jan 29, 08:23 AM 2017
TG is wise enough to keep it for himself. As he should. As we all should if we got it. We all know the casino's would make new rules to get the advantage back....as they did in the past already. It's just good common sense.

Oh thank you for bringing a bit of common sense here Denzie. It seems I forgot about it for a bit :)

Let see what Steve says. I just hope he wont ask Pri any graphs of trillions of tested spins as she is well known for tampering with results  :-\

Maybe we can soften TG to eventually reveal everything then   :thumbsup:
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Jan 29, 10:02 AM 2017
All i need is one concept to test, and i already have that. And the statements around it are inaccurate. My explanations of why are not being understood.

Im just waiting for turbo to respond to my questions, then can propose testing. I think i already know the answers based on previous posts but i want to be sure.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: ignatus on Jan 29, 10:08 AM 2017
don't we ever learn? TG says he uses a "heavy progression" ;D We all know how that will end ?? I should know...   :xd:
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Jan 29, 10:26 AM 2017
Quote
just for the fact to convince otherwise one obstinate physics beatable roulette methods seller.

Here we go again. Im just trying to protect my system selling business and cant stand to see the hg exist, right?

Or how about turbo started this by posing questions for anyone to answer, and Im answering.

Im a player before seller of anything and if turbo has something better than what I have, then Id like to use it. I give my best methods free then players pay me part of winnings. Dont assume my focus is only what you see.

As for all this, it is perhaps an unpopular fact that so far Turbos statements are inaccurate. Ive explained why already, but its not being understood. So once turbo answers my wuestions, I can propose some testing to see if I actually know what Im talking about, or Turbo has something thats not clasdic fallacy.

Lets put aside the snide comments and let proper testing prevail, agreed?

Im interested in the truth, whatever it may be. I am not bound to what i think i know. I open to any change in my understanding. But when im told 1+1=400 im going to keep an open mind, but still carefully investigate the claim with a proper approach.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Drazen on Jan 29, 11:10 AM 2017
Here we go again. Im just trying to protect my system selling business and cant stand to see the hg exist, right


Its not just about seeing a HG here. We have already seen it as far as I can judge. It is also about of having it at the same time :)

Because you can always claim that any test or proof here can not be valid unless you confirmed it too, right? So every scenario ends here. And of course, that makes perfect sense.

And am not sure why such method for wouldnt show in your catalog for example. It would be best seller comparing to any device one must hide or better to say not to alarm casino of its use.

Cheers

Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: wiggy on Jan 29, 11:14 AM 2017
Here are some charts I made a few years ago when I was looking at a kind of similar approach.
What I wanted to find out was how many numbers performed under expectation, how many matched the expectation and how many came above expectation in cycles of 37 spins assuming you are a playing a single 0 wheel.

So as an example in the first chart. After the first cycle of 37 spins.....16 numbers performed below average. 12 numbers matched expectation and 9 numbers hit above expectation. Maybe it will give some more food for thought in this discussion.



Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: jefra on Jan 29, 11:20 AM 2017
 Turbo's concept is not something new what has not been revealed in the past, are different variants, some better, some worse.  BUT it is obvious that Turbo does something different. Maybe is a catch/benefit in small details.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: TurboGenius on Jan 29, 11:56 AM 2017
Good work wiggy
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Jan 29, 03:44 PM 2017
Turbo please see my questions
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: denzie on Jan 29, 05:16 PM 2017
don't we ever learn? TG says he uses a "heavy progression" ;D We all know how that will end ?? I should know...   :xd:

You really should know after all these years. Yet you still doing the same over and over and over and.......  ::)
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Priyanka on Jan 29, 05:21 PM 2017
Lets put aside the snide comments and let proper testing prevail, agreed?
Steve - I have taken an attempt to code this simply in an excel. Be warned, this might not be the exact way Turbo might be playing, but I have not seen this method fail over multiple iterations in this excel sheet. For all you know my excel sheet formula might be wrong (well we have had this before number of times), but at least this is a direct answer to your question. Anyone can fill their own set of numbers or use F9 to generate different sets of random numbers every time.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Jan 29, 05:29 PM 2017
Progression almost always wins in the short term.

And betting on rare events can appear to work in the short term too.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Priyanka on Jan 29, 05:33 PM 2017
Here is the link to excel. I have tested 10 million spins and it seems to hold good. Hmm!! Warned about the excel formula though, it might have been tampered :o 8) ??? ::)

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8V2R2PUfxa7U1NNV05mMldKNGc/view?usp=sharing
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: RouletteGhost on Jan 29, 05:41 PM 2017
Betting twos to become threes?
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Priyanka on Jan 29, 05:47 PM 2017
Betting twos to become threes?
Kind of that with a difference. As this is a test, this test always plays one number.

Twos to become threes and 3s to become 4s so on until it becomes 10s. However this is played only if there is only one number dominating. If there are two numbers that are in 2s no bet is made until one of it becomes 3.  Rest when any number reaches 10s or a new high in bank roll.

There is also a progression. Progressions is 2 units if you are playing for 2s to becomes 3s, 3 units if you are  playing 3s to become 4s and so on.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: falkor2k15 on Jan 29, 05:51 PM 2017
Kind of that with a difference. As this is a test, this test always plays one number.

Twos to become threes and 3s to become 4s so on until it becomes 10s. However this is played only if there is only one number dominating. If there are two numbers that are in 2s no bet is made until one of it becomes 3.  Rest when any number reaches 10s or a new high in bank roll.

There is also a progression. Progressions is 2 units if you are playing for 2s to becomes 3s, 3 units if you are  playing 3s to become 4s and so on.
8)  O0  :thumbsup: Who is your teacher's teacher @ Excel and Roulette?
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: RouletteGhost on Jan 29, 06:05 PM 2017
I know it works because its logic

Pull any 37

There's always 3s and 4s
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Jan 29, 06:13 PM 2017
The randbetween function is notoriously inaccurate with excessive repeats, so shouldnt be used in tests. Many RNG have the same problem. Nevertheless I dont understand what the excel is doing. Please explain the exact logic?

Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: denzie on Jan 29, 06:19 PM 2017
I know it works because its logic

Pull any 37

There's always 3s and 4s

RG....really?  How many cycles you've tested? A 3s always?  No. A 4s always?  Hell no......
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Priyanka on Jan 29, 06:21 PM 2017
The randbetween function is notoriously inaccurate with excessive repeats, so shouldnt be used in tests. Many RNG have the same problem. Nevertheless I dont understand what the excel is doing. Please explain the exact logic?
Understand the limitations and you could use your own numbers.

The logic is explained fully in reply 124
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: denzie on Jan 29, 06:22 PM 2017
Here is the link to excel. I have tested 10 million spins and it seems to hold good.

Only 10 million?  Thats nothing. So doesn't count. We need a kazilliontrillionbillionsuper mega. .....illons ....

Joking . Good job  :)
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: denzie on Jan 29, 06:36 PM 2017
Question for TG.....

What are you trying to accomplish?
What if I or someone post how it should be done ? What if someone code it and prove this really works? What if people see and read it and use it ?

Now what if casino's adjust there wheel or rules based on this method? 

You gave enough info imo. More than enough. To much actually.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Jan 29, 06:59 PM 2017
The logic is wrong. Just because a number has repeated 1, 2, 3 or however many times, it is no more likely to repeat on the next spin, or the next 10 spins, 37 spins or whatever. This is an approach that has been tested extensively. To reveal it as fallacy I released free testing software to help people. Its at http://www.roulettephysics.com/roulette-pattern-detector/

Priyanka, if you are simulating this approach with excel and it is showing a profit over millions of spins, you would have an error in the calculations somewhere. Unfortunately Im not an expert at excel so I cant follow the coding.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: RouletteGhost on Jan 29, 07:16 PM 2017
so let me get this straight

if a profit shows then it "must be wrong"

that is steves stance

so that proves a winning method could never be proven to steve because he would not accept it

he wants it proven to him, and if so, it must be wrong

broken down: steve says if there is profits over millions of spins it is coded wrong: laymens terms: steve believes no such thing exists, so debating him on it is pointless at best
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: RouletteGhost on Jan 29, 07:19 PM 2017
now everyone knows here each spin is independent and a repeater doesnt define the next spin and anything can happen

but the fact is 38 in 38 will never happen before our eyes
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: falkor2k15 on Jan 29, 07:25 PM 2017
The logic is wrong. Just because a number has repeated 1, 2, 3 or however many times, it is no more likely to repeat on the next spin, or the next 10 spins, 37 spins or whatever. This is an approach that has been tested extensively. To reveal it as fallacy I released free testing software to help people. Its at http://www.roulettephysics.com/roulette-pattern-detector/

Priyanka, if you are simulating this approach with excel and it is showing a profit over millions of spins, you would have an error in the calculations somewhere. Unfortunately Im not an expert at excel so I cant follow the coding.
She described a few more additional rules. I'll test it out next week to see... It might be possible to reverse engineer the spread sheet too to confirm the rules are as described - certainly easier than the videos. We have to give her the benefit of the doubt now - until proven right, wrong or phony.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Jan 29, 07:28 PM 2017
so let me get this straight

if a profit shows then it "must be wrong"

that is steves stance

so that proves a winning method could never be proven to steve because he would not accept it

he wants it proven to him, and if so, it must be wrong

broken down: steve says if there is profits over millions of spins it is coded wrong: laymens terms: steve believes no such thing exists, so debating him on it is pointless at best

If someone gives you a program and you cannot verify it is even coded correctly, and you don't even understand how the software is structured to test, how can you verify testing is done properly?

Can you imagine how flawed scientific processes would be if everyone just accepted unknown software as accurately coded?

RG you need to understand despite what you think, I am not partial to any "opinions" or concepts. I believe in reason and logic. My "opinions" are not "opinions" in this case. It is not about my favorite food or color. It is about mathematical equations. It is not my "opinion" that 1+1 = 2.

but the fact is 38 in 38 will never happen before our eyes

You still are not understanding that any other sequence of 38 numbers is just as unlikely, and will happen as often over time. There is nothing that sets one sequence of spins apart from another when there is no connection.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: thelaw on Jan 29, 07:28 PM 2017
so let me get this straight

if a profit shows then it "must be wrong"

that is steves stance

so that proves a winning method could never be proven to steve because he would not accept it

he wants it proven to him, and if so, it must be wrong

broken down: steve says if there is profits over millions of spins it is coded wrong: laymens terms: steve believes no such thing exists, so debating him on it is pointless at best

From Steve:


Quote
Im interested in the truth, whatever it may be. I am not bound to what i think i know. I open to any change in my understanding. But when im told 1+1=400 im going to keep an open mind, but still carefully investigate the claim with a proper approach.

You'll notice that Steve wrote "truth" not "facts". Everyone can have their own truth, but facts exist independent of an individual's opinion.

Although, Steve also believes in precognition/remote viewing.........so perhaps he's making his own rules either way. :ooh:
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: RouletteGhost on Jan 29, 07:29 PM 2017
My point was he wants proof then he won't entertain it

Saying it must be wrong suggests he thinks it could never be so

So it's a wasted debate
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Jan 29, 07:33 PM 2017
My point was he wants proof then he won't entertain it

No, read what I wrote. I understand the logic he claimed to code, and explained why it is incorrect. What i'm saying is I cant determine if he coded correctly.

You'll notice that Steve wrote "truth" not "facts". Everyone can have their own truth, but facts exist independent of an individual's opinion.

The truth is made from facts. They are the same thing. There are no real grey areas in this universe. What we call grey is simply something not understood yet. To imply otherwise is saying things can happen without cause. When is the last thing you know that happened without any cause at all?

Although, Steve also believes in precognition/remote viewing.........so perhaps he's making his own rules either way.

Sure, precognition has a much better chance of being legit than 1+1 = 4324

Why the attacks on me? I'm simply trying to determine if TG has something legit or not. Why should my logical approach bother anyone?
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Jan 29, 07:44 PM 2017
RG, you are also forgetting my own software and testing confirms what many experts in mathematics and gaming have also found. And that is like I keep saying:

1. Previous spins have no connection to future spins. That means you can have as many repeaters as you want, but the odds of any number spinning next don't change.

2. Saying there will never be 38 numbers in 38 spins is nonsense. It is no different to any other sequence of 38 spins.

What Priyanka has given is an excel chart and I dont know what it is. I only know what he claims it is. If I understood the coding i would check it for errors. Instead, what I do is use my own software and it contradictions what Priyanka and Turbo say, although my software corroborates what professionals in gaming and mathematics found. So without even checking the code, being logical, who's software is probably right?
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: thelaw on Jan 29, 07:53 PM 2017
Quote
Sure, precognition has a much better chance of being legit than 1+1 = 4324

Now you're just throwing your gun...........come on Steve.

I seem to remember that you were going to publish your proof of these claims...............still waiting. :ooh:

Although, I'm also still waiting to see just 1 single member who has used any of your products successfully and posted a report about their winnings. :sad2:

Nothing personally against you Steve; you've always seemed like a fair guy. But you can't ask for proof of a method, while making outrages claims beyond the realm of current scientific knowledge. If that were the case, then Turbo could just say that the math it simply too complicated for you to understand, and you'd be stuck. :thumbsup:

Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: RouletteGhost on Jan 29, 07:59 PM 2017
I wasn't trying to attack Steve

I just try to have a direct and no sugar coating line of communication

Steve believes roulette cannot be beaten without increasing accuracy of prediction

Now, I believed betting a number that has repeated is increasing accuracy of prediction.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: thelaw on Jan 29, 08:04 PM 2017
Quote
Steve believes roulette cannot be beaten without increasing accuracy of prediction

Now, I believed betting a number that has repeated is increasing accuracy of prediction.

So which of you is telling the truth? :question:
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Jan 29, 08:06 PM 2017
Now you're just throwing your gun...........come on Steve.

Throwing my gun? Well I guess it is a fact that numbers that repeat have a better chance of spinning next. Go win your millions.

Although, I'm also still waiting to see just 1 single member who has used any of your products successfully and posted a report about their winnings.

Firstly all players submit an NDA, so the vast majority say nothing. But actually there have been a few over the years. Like Clothdog who initially attacked me but later admitted he had done well with the system when applied it correctly. There's also the lab test report. There are others but you know, anyone can test something like my computers free and see for themselves. So why bother arguing? Besides, I teach advantage play. Anyone with a brain and experience with AP in roulette knows it works in the right conditions. AP is what the casinos are scared of. Are you really going to tell me repeaters worries casinos?

Nothing personally against you Steve; you've always seemed like a fair guy. But you can't ask for proof of a method, while making outrages claims beyond the realm of current scientific knowledge.

Actually there's enough about precog to indicate it may very well be legitimate. Start with the global consciousness project at Princeton: http://noosphere.princeton.edu - nothing personal, but if you don't know the facts about something, you will easily dismiss it as nonsense from your opinion.

Steve believes roulette cannot be beaten without increasing accuracy of prediction
Now, I believed betting a number that has repeated is increasing accuracy of prediction.

But it doesn't. that's my point. Use my free software. And if you arent sure about it being coded correctly, do a smaller test to see how it functions.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: falkor2k15 on Jan 29, 08:20 PM 2017
Here's a breakdown of the spreadsheet...

(https://s23.postimg.org/mctb6h84b/Untitled.png)

Haven't seen anything suspicious yet. All seems to tally up with the written rules.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Jan 29, 08:32 PM 2017
Thanks it helps a little. I'm still looking into it myself.

There are a few things that might hold clues EG:

1. When there are no spins at all, the bankroll is like this:

(https://www.rouletteforum.cc/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pichost.org%2Fimages%2F2017%2F01%2F29%2Ftemp_857977.png&hash=1fdf83c7257c0110175f29ceba7f2eca) (http://www.pichost.org/image/Qyhl)
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: thelaw on Jan 29, 08:34 PM 2017
First off, Steve, my hats off to you. You have mastered the invisible compromise with regards to your Roulette products.

Quote
Firstly all players submit an NDA, so the vast majority say nothing. But actually there have been a few over the years. Like Clothdog who initially attacked me but later admitted he had done well with the system when applied it correctly. There's also the lab test report. There are others but you know, anyone can test something like my computers free and see for themselves. So why bother arguing? Besides, I teach advantage play. Anyone with a brain and experience with AP in roulette knows it works in the right conditions. AP is what the casinos are scared of. Are you really going to tell me repeaters worries casinos?

You just proceeded to answer my question like a great politician........bit of info (Clothdog, who oddly kept searching for a winning method on the forums through 2012 after his "apology letter" to you 2009 where he admitted that your method actually worked. You would think that finding a winning system would be enough...... :question:). Then a misdirect (Lab Report?.........by what independent agency?). And then an old-fashioned challenge (why not try it for yourself?.........if only I had the 8hrs per day for a week to run the software)

Quote
Actually there's enough about precog to indicate it may very well be legitimate. Start with the global consciousness project at Princeton: http://noosphere.princeton.edu - nothing personal, but if you don't know the facts about something, you will easily dismiss it as nonsense from your opinion.

From Roger Nelson himself who runs the project:

According to The Age, Nelson concedes "the data, so far, is not solid enough for global consciousness to be said to exist at all. It is not possible, for example, to look at the data and predict with any accuracy what (if anything) the eggs may be responding to."[19]

Robert Matthews said that while it was "the most sophisticated attempt yet" to prove psychokinesis existed, the unreliability of significant events to cause statistically significant spikes meant that "the only conclusion to emerge from the Global Consciousness Project so far is that data without a theory is as meaningless as words without a narrative".


It's great that you believe in it..........if only the creators of the project had as much faith in the program.

Cheers! :thumbsup:
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: denzie on Jan 29, 08:45 PM 2017
Repeaters,  repeaters and more repeaters. ...it's all I read here. But nothing that shows how to play them. And there's where yall drop the ball.

Ok back to dozens ? Or 9 streets ? Or 5 guaranteed wins ? Or ... things I've posted ?

Steve...I'm really sure you don't know how to play them. Really. You know a lot about roulette for sure...but sure not everything.

Stop pushing him coz he's not gonna tell ya. And if he does he's an dumb mofo.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: thelaw on Jan 29, 08:54 PM 2017
@Denzie

Here are a couple that Turbo posted on his site that involve repeaters:

https://web.archive.org/web/20140410082741/http://www.freewebs.com/turbogenius/anotherrepeatermethod.htm

https://web.archive.org/web/20120915134635/http://www.freewebs.com/turbogenius/turbos35unitmethod.htm

Cheers!  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Jan 29, 09:00 PM 2017
Its simple. Not a big conspiracy. Clothdog didnt like the effort needed for AP and wanted something quicker and easier. The lab test is for government agencies and was provided to the ACCC at one point to validate my claims - not that it was even needed. The point of the lab test was to have an independent and qualified professional do testing - to the point where it would satisfy the ACCC. Because I trade as a corporation, I'm subject to strict honesty in advertising. Thats why scammers are usually sole traders not a corporation.

Law,.. my free trials, my public demos, does it all work or not..... I dont intend to argue about it here. It's not the place. But you brought it up. I'll finish with the fact I offer free trials of all my systems and computers. If you don't have the time to test them, you'll never know. The offering of free trials is not some big conspiracy too. Now can we get back to the topic?

Regarding precog, continue your research. They do believe in the effect. They have stated while the affect appears to be only slight, it is significant. How significant for one event? Only barely. But how about the total database?

Quote
Yet the odds against chance of this meanshift over a database this size are about a hundred billion to one.

Then continue to studies on psiological responses to humans just before images are displayed. The responses are different just before an emotional image is displayed. There's more, including my own personal research, and testing of the majority vote method. But can we stick to the topic now?
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: thelaw on Jan 29, 09:23 PM 2017
@Steve

Just went to look up what agency the ACCC is exactly, and this was one of the first hits:



WTF? :ooh:





Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: thelaw on Jan 29, 09:37 PM 2017
@Steve

Disregard the question...........I've seen enough.

There might be some honey-dicking going on here...........but hell if I know.

There's more drama around this than a Mexican Telenovela!!! :sad2: :sad2: :sad2:

I'll let you guys get back to it........






Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Jan 29, 09:48 PM 2017
Thelaw, you referred to a site full of blatant deception. Thats not what comes up with a ACCC search. You know about it.  Everyone has seen that site. You only referred to it trying to piss me off. Why? Because you have nothing left to say. Rather than engage in a civil discussion with logic, you throw mud. You aren't the first person to do that. The rubbish you referred to is refuted in detail at www.genuinewinnerroulettesystem.com

There was rational discussion until you trolled here throwing mud. If you have something valuable to contribute, do so. But you are on moderation because childish mudslinging is not tolerated.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Jan 29, 09:53 PM 2017
Steve...I'm really sure you don't know how to play them. Really. You know a lot about roulette for sure...but sure not everything.

Its not a complicated concept. Turbo is talking about 38 spin cycles. So the question is if there is a repeater within 38 spins, is that number more likely to spin in the cycle more often than another? The answer is NO. It's not just me who has tested it to no end.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Priyanka on Jan 30, 01:42 AM 2017
So the question is if there is a repeater within 38 spins, is that number more likely to spin in the cycle more often than another?
Steve unfortunately thats not the question. See below from Turbo.

Absolutely not.
A number appearing doesn't mean that the time that it takes to appear again will be anything other than what it would normally be. It could be the next spin - or hundreds of spins. So no assumptions here, and that has nothing to do with where I'm going with this.

The concept is a bit more than such a straightforward interpretation. To be able to understand you must try removing the cap on next spin odds are 1/37 or 1/38 and it never changes. If you are not able to, you will never be able to understand this. Try this one for a change, think about the odds of a spin repeating itself. When there is one spin only available, the odds of that spin repeating itself is 1/37. When there are two spins already available the odds of a repeat happening in 3rd spin is 2/37. So as you see, the odds of a spin repeating increases gradually till it becomes 1 when all the spins have spun. So if you consider this as a one set, even though the odds of next spin always remains 1/37, the odds of a repeat happening in next spin, constantly changes and in an increasing curve. I am sure the odds changing in this fashion is a fact.

Now try moving on to the next step. Take the numbers that repeat in the above sequence and create another sequence. Does odds or predictability change? Thats a question I would love you to find the answers yourselves, if you are really interested in understanding what is happening.

Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Jan 30, 02:28 AM 2017
Well then this is proving a waste of time.

There were specific examples like there never being 38 numbers in 38 spins.  I refuted this. But now are vague tg explanations that are impossible to test, because they are too vague.

But i will say i have software that tests the frequency of sequences after specific sequences and the result is as i suspected... past spins don't affect future spins with exceptions i knew about. It is old news and well tested.

I don't find tg's claims credible. I hoped i would find some truth in it all, otherwise i wouldn't have invested time. But its just going in circles. Everything being said is the same ballpark as law of the third and it doesn't work. I am still open to someone proving me wrong.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: falkor2k15 on Jan 30, 06:00 AM 2017
Quote
When there is one spin only available, the odds of that spin repeating itself is 1/37. When there are two spins already available the odds of a repeat happening in 3rd spin is 2/37. So as you see, the odds of a spin repeating increases gradually till it becomes 1 when all the spins have spun. So if you consider this as a one set, even though the odds of next spin always remains 1/37, the odds of a repeat happening in next spin, constantly changes and in an increasing curve. I am sure the odds changing in this fashion is a fact.

Now try moving on to the next step. Take the numbers that repeat in the above sequence and create another sequence. Does odds or predictability change? Thats a question I would love you to find the answers yourselves, if you are really interested in understanding what is happening.
This is something I would love to test, but it's really vague...

"When there is one spin only available, the odds of that spin repeating itself is 1/37."
Understood.

"When there are two spins already available the odds of a repeat happening in 3rd spin is 2/37."
!? "two spins available"? What does that mean? Does it mean:
Spin 1: 29; Spin 2: 15... now more chance for 29 or 15 to repeat next spin?

Or does it mean:
Spin 1: 29... now more chance for 29 to repeat 2 spins later?

"So as you see, the odds of a spin repeating increases gradually till it becomes 1 when all the spins have spun."
Depends on understanding the previous sentence.

" So if you consider this as a one set, even though the odds of next spin always remains 1/37, the odds of a repeat happening in next spin, constantly changes and in an increasing curve. I am sure the odds changing in this fashion is a fact."
Next spin or next 2 spins? I think maybe a typo or something.

"Now try moving on to the next step. Take the numbers that repeat in the above sequence and create another sequence."
Ala "positions" = outside the box?

Chances of a reply from Priyanka to the above questions: 3/37!
 
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: nottophammer on Jan 30, 06:46 AM 2017
Is the math written in stone? or is the math like a good politician, it will manipulate the answer.

If written in stone, the math wont lie, but does the roulette know it is supposed to play as the math states?
Answer, roulette does what it wants, not to the set rules.

Spin 1 #29, spin 2 #29, does the math say its going to show again? it has the same chance, as to show, or as, not to show.

Thats how a novice see's it.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: TurboGenius on Jan 30, 07:05 AM 2017
Wow - I wish that I had time to reply to this, but it will have to wait until later.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: nottophammer on Jan 30, 07:28 AM 2017
Didn't post this Friday as seems nobody gets ROTT, both games total 168 units. #7 did come again 32 spins
(https://www.rouletteforum.cc/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pichost.org%2Fimages%2F2017%2F01%2F30%2Ftemp_216032.jpg&hash=37f098a2e2d5ac69c10518ad5838e40a) (http://www.pichost.org/image/Y5Gc)
(https://www.rouletteforum.cc/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pichost.org%2Fimages%2F2017%2F01%2F30%2Ftemp_431432.jpg&hash=447d7db6b3db0b6f47d241f92c96b14b) (http://www.pichost.org/image/YGQa)

Set in stone,WTF?
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: RouletteGhost on Jan 30, 07:32 AM 2017
The idea is that in MOST cycles a repeater will hit 3 or more times

So in MOST cycles we can profit by betting a low amount of numbers, by only betting the repeaters

Don't worry turbo those who get it, get it
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: nottophammer on Jan 30, 07:45 AM 2017
There's spins and then there's spins, you just have to read them, make the decision  :twisted:
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: nottophammer on Jan 30, 07:57 AM 2017
This is a bit naughty of me, but go to the leaderboard, keep an eye on 2bobbet, talked of a Turbo method, looks impressive.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: jefra on Jan 30, 08:20 AM 2017
Guys, some spins for testings:

jan_17_2017- t3n_  237no.                                    
33      29      10      33      15      29      7
19      0      34      27      29      4      16
9      33      2      28      17      26      34
22      27      32      28      9      31      16
10      7      4      23      25      31      36
17      11      29      1      34      19      26
22      1      13      9      33      2      36
36      18      30      5      32      4      29
12      20      31      35      15      10      36
23      18      15      32      12      5      7
4      26      23      19      35      19      18
33      12      14      32      6      7      9
27      18      1      24      15      10      14
7      27      36      8      25      7      12
30      9      30      5      10      34      11
8      28      3      23      10      8      
32      4      32      30      16      12      
28      21      8      18      14      34      
24      34      36      35      17      12      
22      30      1      34      27      30      
11      0      22      3      8      33      
9      17      9      9      9      30      
15      3      1      6      18      20      
15      10      21      16      21      15      
15      14      13      0      36      28      
32      29      16      2      34      35      
25      10      27      6      12      4      
31      35      13      18      4      35      
24      6      14      31      7      31      
31      23      13      6      7      16      
5      13      2      27      20      34      
28      24      6      2      1      4      
6      36      12      7      11      16      
26      6      6      4      10      32      
31      34      14      8      7      35      
14      14      20      22      0      7      
13      24      20      4      8      25      
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: nottophammer on Jan 30, 08:33 AM 2017
spin 7, #22, +15
Vaddi or interblock
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: nottophammer on Jan 30, 08:35 AM 2017
18
(https://www.rouletteforum.cc/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pichost.org%2Fimages%2F2017%2F01%2F30%2Ftemp_884193.png&hash=206f865d6130fb9d33ce8f41ca542192) (http://www.pichost.org/image/YT9A)
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: denzie on Jan 30, 08:37 AM 2017
The idea is that in MOST cycles a repeater will hit 3 or more times

So in MOST cycles we can profit by betting a low amount of numbers, by only betting the repeaters

Don't worry turbo those who get it, get it

Do you get it RG? Do you know what and when to bet to come out winning?

For example in reply #95 it's clearly he DOESN'T  bet the 1s. But on GF in the TG and TM walk in a bar....he clearly DOES bet on the 1s .  :P
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: nottophammer on Jan 30, 08:45 AM 2017
Mortagons #'s  :thumbsup:
(https://www.rouletteforum.cc/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pichost.org%2Fimages%2F2017%2F01%2F30%2Ftemp_433108.png&hash=5c3de24a799be6632fa4d4b13506563b) (http://www.pichost.org/image/YFNs)
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: nottophammer on Jan 30, 09:15 AM 2017
Just played these on MPR, player on there by the name of Sparkle, let you work it out #7 :lol: :lol: :lol:
(https://www.rouletteforum.cc/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pichost.org%2Fimages%2F2017%2F01%2F30%2Ftemp_985517.jpg&hash=21b93d6ed7eda45e7e6bd1cfb1cff18f) (http://www.pichost.org/image/YOq7)
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: RouletteGhost on Jan 30, 09:19 AM 2017
Do you get it RG? Do you know what and when to bet to come out winning?

For example in reply #95 it's clearly he DOESN'T  bet the 1s. But on GF in the TG and TM walk in a bar....he clearly DOES bet on the 1s .  :P

No I don't know how you or TG play it exactly but I'm not going to beg to be told either lol

I get the basics

Try and capitalize on numbers that hit 3 or more times in cycles

How would I play it? When a number repeats begin betting it.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: denzie on Jan 30, 11:27 AM 2017

I get the basics

How would I play it? When a number repeats begin betting it.

Repeat or shows ?

 :thumbsup:
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: nottophammer on Jan 30, 12:40 PM 2017
The 1st game is seen in reply 168, didn't mark the win 15'735.
But as you see start 2nd game with that amount. Nothing unusual in the 60 spins.
Got the 15 non-hit in spins 11-40,end +0. So at 60 we could see 30 have shown. That means 6 could show, break the 20 spins into groups of 5 and mark X where could see them.
If the 25th did not hit on spin 43, would have bet for it, as over due, then we see 2 more show,Fast, so it's just watch, again if #17 had not shown would have started to bet for the 28th to show, nothing lost.
Now watch, 4 spins so 29th is late, its known max on airball is 16 and on RNG 23 spins, so you just watch and at 60th theres only 28 shown.
Now bet, start to mark on the new 60 spins, why, because what are the non-hit in this new 60 spin going to do,White belt hope your taking this in :lol:, 13 spins at 20 units per non-hit win, took 20 spins.
Whilst marking and checking to see how big max for the 30th to show could be, #6 shows. Well, thinking of RG's 15 number idea, you can see it's 14 non-hit on the bounce so its screaming out bet for a repeat, win now we have 16'050 units.
(https://www.rouletteforum.cc/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pichost.org%2Fimages%2F2017%2F01%2F30%2Ftemp_635959.jpg&hash=bebb557adc35c5960dafeb53fde3dbc9) (http://www.pichost.org/image/YeUQ)
ROTT  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: nottophammer on Jan 30, 12:45 PM 2017
1st looked at roulette forums back in 20-6-13.
Learn't from Winkel, so thanks.
Now i don't think i'm going to learn anything more, from forums.
Goodbye to a few good members definetly not the wanker goldrosen
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Mortagon on Jan 30, 01:09 PM 2017
I get the basics

Try and capitalize on numbers that hit 3 or more times in cycles

How would I play it? When a number repeats begin betting it.

http://ruletka-sistemi.com/graal.htm
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: RouletteGhost on Jan 30, 01:25 PM 2017
Translate
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: rouletteKEY on Jan 30, 01:35 PM 2017
RG

It basically says jot down the numbers as they come and once you have 18 unique...play them as almost an EC

Once ahead...quit

Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Rewster88 on Jan 30, 01:39 PM 2017
you wait till 18 unique numbers came in(not in a row). then bet those 18 numbers. it says it should win more then lose. they made a mistake with number 35.

R
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Rewster88 on Jan 30, 01:40 PM 2017
roulette key is faster lol :thumbsup:
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: RouletteGhost on Jan 30, 02:04 PM 2017
Lol cool

Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: falkor2k15 on Jan 30, 02:40 PM 2017
Steve unfortunately thats not the question. See below from Turbo.

The concept is a bit more than such a straightforward interpretation. To be able to understand you must try removing the cap on next spin odds are 1/37 or 1/38 and it never changes. If you are not able to, you will never be able to understand this. Try this one for a change, think about the odds of a spin repeating itself. When there is one spin only available, the odds of that spin repeating itself is 1/37. When there are two spins already available the odds of a repeat happening in 3rd spin is 2/37. So as you see, the odds of a spin repeating increases gradually till it becomes 1 when all the spins have spun. So if you consider this as a one set, even though the odds of next spin always remains 1/37, the odds of a repeat happening in next spin, constantly changes and in an increasing curve. I am sure the odds changing in this fashion is a fact.

Now try moving on to the next step. Take the numbers that repeat in the above sequence and create another sequence. Does odds or predictability change? Thats a question I would love you to find the answers yourselves, if you are really interested in understanding what is happening.
No reply from Priyanka yet, but from what I can gather about this sentence:
"When there is one spin only available, the odds of that spin repeating itself is 1/37. When there are two spins already available the odds of a repeat happening in 3rd spin is 2/37."

One spin available must mean 1 number shown, i.e. 24... 1/37 chance for 24 to repeat next spin.
Two spins available = 24, 35... 2/37 chance for 24 or 35 to repeat next spin.
37 unique numbers shown = 100% chance of a repeat.

The problem is that to bet 1 number @ 1/37 = 1 unit cost; to bet 2 numbers @ 2/37 = 2 units, so it's equivalent risk/reward (or cost/payout). Therefore, why Priyanka's spread sheet is showing consistent profit cannot be down to that; I think Pri's above quote happens to be a red herring except for the "positions" part, which isn't utilised in the spread sheet so somewhat irrelevant to this topic.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: NextYear on Jan 30, 02:45 PM 2017
1st looked at roulette forums back in 20-6-13.
Learn't from Winkel, so thanks.
Now i don't think i'm going to learn anything more, from forums.
Goodbye to a few good members definetly not the wanker goldrosen

Have you noticed - 3.000 posts!
 :thumbsup:
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: TurboGenius on Jan 30, 05:53 PM 2017
Question for TG.....

What are you trying to accomplish?
What if I or someone post how it should be done ? What if someone code it and prove this really works? What if people see and read it and use it ?

Now what if casino's adjust there wheel or rules based on this method? 

You gave enough info imo. More than enough. To much actually.

I tend to agree with you - everything other than the specific progression is already available.
The casino could certainly make adjustments to the game to defeat this (and they would).
I can't help those who can't see past 1 spin as being part of a group of spins.
I can't help those who don't understand that repeaters are going to happen.
They just want to point to the next spin and say "What number is it going to be then ?"
They won't get it.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Jan 30, 06:17 PM 2017
Turbo, you have said things that are simply not accurate. It's not a case of me not "getting it". I can and have pointed out the incorrect statements, but your response ends up being with vague information. For example, you said things like you never get 38 numbers in 38 spins. But any combination of 38 spins will happen just as often as the next. Then you say the cycle doesnt need to be 38 spins. But then its the same case, for any length of cycles.

I understand the concept of "what happens over numerous spins". But I myself have tested countless combinations of repeaters, and what happens with them over both short and long term. I used automated software to test probably trillions of spins. And except in the circumstances I already knew about, repeaters are no more likely to spin than any other number - either on the next spin, 2 spins later, or 3,4,5, etc.. And there appears to be no correlation to other repeaters. The only way to properly test this is with automated software, otherwise you wont know if results are good or bad luck.

I released free software for people to verify some of this for themselves. But in time perhaps I'll publish different software that's much more thorough. The problem with this for me is I'd need to create a censored version to protect some things, while still allowing anyone to use it.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: RouletteGhost on Jan 30, 06:34 PM 2017
Turbo, you have said things that are simply not accurate. It's not a case of me not "getting it". I can and have pointed out the incorrect statements, but your response ends up being with vague information. For example, you said things like you never get 38 numbers in 38 spins. But any combination of 38 spins will happen just as often as the next.

What you are missing, or choosing to ignore, is that in many of the 38 spin cycles there will be numbers that repeat 3 or more times

So potentially betting on a number that hit twice would create a situation where you are only betting a few numbers max

You have a structure to go by

And if you lose you make it up on the next cycle

I'm going to take some real spins this weekend and show you. I don't need millions of spins cause that's pointless.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Jan 30, 06:52 PM 2017
What you are missing, or choosing to ignore, is that in many of the 38 spin cycles there will be numbers that repeat 3 or more times

Again I am not partial to any belief. I am well aware we never know everything, and our understanding and knowledge can change anytime. I am not choosing to ignore anything. I am stating facts based on my own testing, and the testing of many others who are qualified to do proper testing. My beliefs are based on this. And unless someone or something credible contradicts what I think I know, I'll continue to believe what I think I know.

I could say to you perhaps you are missing, or choosing to ignore, is that repeating numbers (including multiple repeats) does not at all change anything. It is normal probability and the odds are still the same whether it be for the next spin or whatever. Again, the testing supports this. The testing does not support otherwise. And until the testing contradicts what I'm saying, I'll continue to say what I'm saying. Is it unreasonable that my beliefs align with test results?

I don't need millions of spins cause that's pointless.

You are misunderstanding the point of "millions of spins". There can be 10,000 players with what they think is the HG. Each of them play only 100 spins. About 90% of them win, and are convinced they have the HG - and they rave to everyone about how they have beaten roulette. They win a combined $500,000. But the 10% of players lose a combined $510,000, then go back to the drawing board. So what happened here? 1M spins were played. Most players won, but the overall result of all players combined was a loss.

The winning players see no point in testing a million spins. The losing players understand better. How can you be part of the 90% of winners instead of the 10% which are losers? You cant choose. It's just chance. And that's how most systems either win or lose. And its how one person thinks they have the hg, when they dont.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: rouletteKEY on Jan 30, 08:09 PM 2017
So everyone is just gonna argue for the sake of arguing?

There are several types of players (sure I am leaving some out)

Computer players...use tech to try to predict the outcome

AP...bias players

Recreational...birthdates, anniversaries, uniform numbers and whatever strikes their fancy...just like the environment or wanna have a little fun

Sleeper players...because we all know it's due...it really has to hit now    right?

Wheel players...sectors and skips all the way

Felt...dozens and columns, streets and EC's    it's just way more organized on the table

Mystics...hunches, numerology...it's just in the stars or tea leaves and you gotta figure out how to analyze it and play it

Warm numbers...they have hit but not alot...but I wanna hit 'em while they get hot instead of recognizing the hot number and playing it when it eventually cools

Hot Numbers...this just keeps hitting so ride the wave

Now many people have some thoughts, feelings or play style that comes across multiple aspects and I am sure there are styles I couldn't rattle off in 3 minutes off the top of my head.  Didn't include the math boys specifically here as an ideology because they KNOW they are losing 5% per spin...so they just talk about it and can't play because it's not logical to intentionally lose 5% every friggin spin.

Point is...

    there's alot of different viewpoints here with thousands of methods on this forum and others...hell I think Ignatus alone has about 13,000 methods and they all win sometimes and then who know what happens because it's on to the next one 38 seconds later

   I have a certain set of beliefs and have structured a style of play that fits those beliefs and has held up well...I come to the forums to see if there is some out of the box thinking that can further refine the play.  Kinda like listening to motivational tapes or going to a business seminar.  98% is all the same crap I heard last time, last year, last decade...whatever...but there's that one little thing every once in awhile that turns on that light and leads to a breakthru and you never know where you are gonna find it.

   I didn't find it in this thread because I already play hot numbers...never sleepers.  I like the way I play...it works for me and I will change it if I ever see something that makes more sense and makes more money.

   The math doesn't mean anything to me...because I can't spend the math.

   If Steve's computers work...great    If someone can clock some tilted wheel that the ball loves a sector on...sweet    If your anniversary or kids baseball number happens to win every time you play it...I'm good with that too

   No one is gonna give a grail type method away but I believe everyone who gives serious thought and contemplation to the game at hand can win at this game.  Think about the things the casino controls and doesn't control...think about the things that are dictated by the house rules and quit worrying about 5% HE.  The casino's system works because of more than a straight house edge.  Think like the casino to figure out how to beat the casino.

   I guarantee the casino is not shaking in its shoes seeing flat bets and double dozen plays and if you are playing whatever number because it hasn't hit all day...they will give you a nice buffet dinner with the comps you surely earned if you ran outta money before the number hit...in fact it's probably on the marquee three times when you get back from that free dinner.

   Use the information you have to make informed decisions and then adjust to your table limits and bankroll.  Berating everyone whose math or 19 kajillion spin simulator software has a glitch or didn't give the expected or wanted result isn't advancing any discussion.

   I can make alot of math arguments for how I play and there are always technicalities that make for an argument that it just doesnt add up.  Do I have a 1/38th chance of winning on any given spin?  Yes

   BUT...if I am committed to a series of attacks with both positive and negative progressions based on average, long and short term hit rates derived from real play on real wheel and not some made up RNG then how exactly do you draw that algorithm?  And once we are that deep I would quit arguing and start working on a way to start winning. 

   My math never really touches the 1/38 because I do not believe there is an equal chance of the 16 sleepers hitting as often in the next X number of spins as the 22 that have already hit or the 6 unique multiple hit numbers buried in that 22.  Plus I know I have X number of spins to get that winner...the next spin is meaningless excepting that a winner on the next spin gives me the highest rate of return. 

   Why don't we just agree to disagree on some of these things because I know some are not gonna like the hot numbers...add progressions...add attacks instead of single spin outcomes and it can spin wildly outta control or right into your wheelhouse.  Either way the wheels keep spinning
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: RouletteGhost on Jan 30, 08:11 PM 2017
exactly
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Jan 30, 08:24 PM 2017
So everyone is just gonna argue for the sake of arguing?

Not for the sake of arguing. For the sake of accuracy.
There are several types of players (sure I am leaving some out)

Computer players...use tech to try to predict the outcome

AP...bias players

Recreational...birthdates, anniversaries, uniform numbers and whatever strikes their fancy...just like the environment or wanna have a little fun

Sleeper players...because we all know it's due...it really has to hit now    right?

Wheel players...sectors and skips all the way

Felt...dozens and columns, streets and EC's    it's just way more organized on the table

Mystics...hunches, numerology...it's just in the stars or tea leaves and you gotta figure out how to analyze it and play it

Warm numbers...they have hit but not alot...but I wanna hit 'em while they get hot instead of recognizing the hot number and playing it when it eventually cools

Hot Numbers...this just keeps hitting so ride the wave

We, or at least I, am not discussing personal preference here. I couldnt care less about someone's personal preference. The discussion, to me at least, is about accuracy of information.

 The math doesn't mean anything to me...because I can't spend the math.

We live in a mathematical and organized universe. There's a benefit to understanding it.

But nobody is telling you not to play however you want.

 My math never really touches the 1/38 because I do not believe there is an equal chance of the 16 sleepers hitting as often in the next X number of spins as the 22 that have already hit or the 6 unique multiple hit numbers buried in that 22.

We'll disagree on this point.
Why don't we just agree to disagree on some of these things

I dont have a problem with that. This whole thing is going in circles anyway.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: RouletteGhost on Jan 30, 08:35 PM 2017
there's a difference between the math of the game and what the wheel will ACTUALLY do
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Jan 30, 09:27 PM 2017
Exactly how?
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: RouletteGhost on Jan 30, 10:08 PM 2017
RG

It basically says jot down the numbers as they come and once you have 18 unique...play them as almost an EC

Once ahead...quit

must be some sort of luck/anomaly....performs well
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: falkor2k15 on Jan 31, 05:35 AM 2017
I tend to agree with you - everything other than the specific progression is already available.
The casino could certainly make adjustments to the game to defeat this (and they would).
I can't help those who can't see past 1 spin as being part of a group of spins.
I can't help those who don't understand that repeaters are going to happen.
They just want to point to the next spin and say "What number is it going to be then ?"
They won't get it.
Next spin vs. Next event is something I always hear being promoted by Pri and co as a valid comparison when in fact I think it's just a red herring.
Pri also said, in so many words, that 1 spin (1 number) is 1/37 vs. 2 spins (2 numbers) is 2/37. She failed to mention that with this increased odds (towards "1" or 37/37) that the cost also increases - so another red herring.

I am going to generate a statistic today that I think may help understand what is really happening here with repeats and Pri's spreadsheet - should hopefully shed light on where we may find this advantage should it exist at all.

But again: the above quotes are just a vague distraction/red herring. If TG has a winning repeats strategy I doubt very much it's based on any concept of "repeats have to happen" or "looking 2+ spins ahead", etc. And TG was one of the first to mention about risk/reward and cost/payout in the "basics" thread - yet "repeats" are always promoted in a disjointed manner, i.e. lacking context on one hand and detail on another. TG is now talking pretty similar here in this thread like how Priyanka talks in Random Thoughts - like a politician.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Turner on Jan 31, 06:30 AM 2017
like a politician.

I agree. :thumbsup:
 
Cloak and Dagger, could tell ya, but I'd have to kill ya, all in the guise of "I'm the guru teacher" and "lets get your puny brains working"

its just needy people with swollen ego's marketing their Brand name.

A brand awareness campaign, if you will.

The carrot on a stick only works for dumb Donkeys and gullible people

(https://www.rouletteforum.cc/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pichost.org%2Fimages%2F2017%2F01%2F31%2Ftemp_138694.png&hash=e4bdf0d6a20af1e5e88596d016593364) (http://www.pichost.org/image/YlVy)
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: TurboGenius on Jan 31, 07:02 AM 2017
And there's always the one (or two) kids in class shooting spitballs and not paying any attention to what's being taught.
It's not his fault.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Turner on Jan 31, 07:10 AM 2017
what's being taught.


Thats the rub. Nothings being taught
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: falkor2k15 on Jan 31, 07:26 AM 2017
Turner is right. There is nothing being taught here, except rhetoric and propaganda. Priyanka's spreadsheet has less to do with repeats, from what I have initially observed, and more to do with targeting 2 numbers appearing in a row, with a steady progression.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: TurboGenius on Jan 31, 07:30 AM 2017
Should I break it down and explain it even clearer ? I see posts by people saying that they understand what I'm saying.
How many times would you expect a teacher to keep going back to the same group of seats and explaining to the few kids who don't get it - who never do homework and never pay attention in class ? It really ruins it for everyone else, and the whole class fails.
When I get back later I'll explain it again hopefully in one post and make it clear(er) - at such time I won't bring it up again here. If at that point it's still a mystery - then it shall always stay a mystery to those who don't get it.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: maestro on Jan 31, 07:37 AM 2017
hahaha i was a kid like that...i like the picture..
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: falkor2k15 on Jan 31, 07:43 AM 2017
Should I break it down and explain it even clearer ? I see posts by people saying that they understand what I'm saying.
How many times would you expect a teacher to keep going back to the same group of seats and explaining to the few kids who don't get it - who never do homework and never pay attention in class ? It really ruins it for everyone else, and the whole class fails.
When I get back later I'll explain it again hopefully in one post and make it clear(er) - at such time I won't bring it up again here. If at that point it's still a mystery - then it shall always stay a mystery to those who don't get it.
People may think they understand you following your broadcasts, but without you testing their understanding or them showing you they understand, it could simply be explained by delusion and the vulnerable's need to join your cult. Since this topic is full of politician's waffle then attention needs to be drawn instead towards the cult agenda behind the broadcasts.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: falkor2k15 on Jan 31, 08:09 AM 2017
Here's some stats I ran today based on how many spins it takes to go from X repeats to Y repeats:

0 > 1 repeat (we knew this already)

Max = 26 spins
Average = spin 7

1 > 2 repeats

Max = 41 spins
Average = spin 13

2 > 3 repeats

Max = 67 spins
Average = spin 16

So let's say we got this situation:
0 appearance = 13 numbers
1 appearance = 13 numbers
2 appearances (repeat level) = 1 number
3 appearances (2 repeats) = 1 number

It could now take 67 spins maximum (based on 1 million spins) to get to the next level: 4 appearances/3 repeats.

Therefore, although there are less numbers involved in the higher levels it takes them longer to repeat (FACT). Also, by then, the sleepers would reach their next level quicker than the repeats.

So where is the advantage to playing repeats? All situations happen to be equivalent/comparable based on cost, i.e. how many numbers involved in the bet selection and the payout (more numbers = less payout). Again, Pri's speadsheet seems to be based more on betting 2 numbers in a row, with a steady progression and unnecessary tracking of repeats.

Top-end data based on first repeat > 20 spins

21824
21316
21713
21145
21833
2117
21127
2189
211712
21177
212213
2152
2151
21711
212111
211210
211210
21710
21119
22727
221027
221215
221220
2286
2295
231910
2348
23123
23159
2354
24318
24712
241021

(need to subtract 1 from the first spin as we don't play spin 1)
27523
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: falkor2k15 on Jan 31, 08:30 AM 2017
One more stat

1 > 2 repeats

Max = 41 spins
Average = spin 13

When the first repeat is > spin 8 then the average for the move to 2nd level is only reduced from spin 13 to spin 12.

2 > 3 repeats

Max = 67 spins
Average = spin 16

When the first and second repeat are above their averages of spin 7 and spin 13, i.e. they occurred on spin 8+ and spin 14+ respectively, then the average time it takes to get to the next level is still 16 spins (independent).
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: denzie on Jan 31, 08:57 AM 2017
1>2 repeats 45 spins in my own data
2>3 repeats 78 spins ""

Of course this doesn't happen often. Sessions like that not make it lose.
And of course we aim for multiple hits  ^-^
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: falkor2k15 on Jan 31, 09:05 AM 2017
1>2 repeats 45 spins in my own data
Comparable then, but we not here to split hairs? You are just confirming the main point I made: there may be less numbers involved @ higher repeat levels, but to get to each subsequent level takes longer and longer for the repeats to continue repeating. Priyanka failed to mention that when she promoted tracking less and less dozens @ higher repeat levels as equating to some kind of advantage (see first few pages of Random Thoughts topic).
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: rouletteKEY on Jan 31, 09:10 AM 2017
Here's some stats I ran today based on how many spins it takes to go from X repeats to Y repeats:

0 > 1 repeat (we knew this already)

Max = 26 spins
Average = spin 7

1 > 2 repeats

Max = 41 spins
Average = spin 13

2 > 3 repeats

Max = 67 spins
Average = spin 16

So let's say we got this situation:
0 appearance = 13 numbers
1 appearance = 13 numbers
2 appearances (repeat level) = 1 number
3 appearances (2 repeats) = 1 number


So there is 28 unique numbers identified in this example 13+13+1+1   leaving 10 on my American wheel

So for the argument (which it certainly is at this point)

Why don't we compare the average and max spins on the hit numbers you illustrated above... with the 10 sleepers...then compare those average and max hit rates and statistically compare if an edge is gained by playing one group vs the other on either an average or max basis...
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: falkor2k15 on Jan 31, 09:16 AM 2017
Quote
Sessions like that not make it lose.
And of course we aim for multiple hits
If we are taking longer and longer to get to the next repeat level then we are going to lose. However, the amount of numbers is less, so in the end we just break even or lose to the house advantage.

So playing for multiple levels if that's what you mean gives no advantage. If you mean playing for multiple hits at the same level it will just become more and more drawn out and uncertain the more levels that are tracked and knowing which number from which level is next to jump up to the next.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: falkor2k15 on Jan 31, 09:21 AM 2017
So there is 28 unique numbers identified in this example 13+13+1+1   leaving 10 on my American wheel

So for the argument (which it certainly is at this point)

Why don't we compare the average and max spins on the hit numbers you illustrated above... with the 10 sleepers...then compare those average and max hit rates and statistically compare if an edge is gained by playing one group vs the other on either an average or max basis...
Was an error... was meant to be 10 numbers at the 2 appearance level so that only one number had taken the lead at the top level.

In general, playing one group over another depends on how many numbers are in that group - not how many times they have repeated. This goes back to the 12 street example:

1 hit: 1234
2 hit: 5678
3 hit: 9,10,11,12

Which group has advantage? I think all groups are equal. You want me to do a test like this for numbers? Or I can do it for streets without the zero?
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: denzie on Jan 31, 09:39 AM 2017
so in the end we just break even or lose to the house advantage.



Isnt that enough to make it win? ? ? ? ? ? ?
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: falkor2k15 on Jan 31, 09:59 AM 2017
Isnt that enough to make it win? ? ? ? ? ? ?
Not unless you get into the study of variance. My guess is that Pri/TG cannot win simply playing for repeats. Pri probably uses repeats to create combinations and then combines combinations in some way to either beat variance or to make S/D sequences - perhaps aided by parallel streams in some way (see my last topic: http://www.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=18499). The spreadsheet, on the other hand, seems to be about betting a rare event using a progression - something we might get a bot to do. Repeats seemed to be tracked at the same time as playing the rare event for the purpose of deceiving us.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: RouletteGhost on Jan 31, 10:13 AM 2017
I can say it in a few lines and under 90 long posts

It's based on repeats and a progression

(edit)
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Turner on Jan 31, 10:23 AM 2017
Betting repeaters isnt good enough especially if you are betting a coverage over cycles

Somehow, you have to make the numbers that are hitting pay for the ones that arnt

That cant be done just by a mild progression and removal of non hitting numbers after a cycle.

The net you are fishing with has holes in and just sewing them up after a cycle isnt good enough so
you have to get very big fish to pay for all the little ones that are escaping.

I get all that, but the missing link is how.

In the case of TG, it seems to be some magic progression. Thats the bit that isnt explained.

thats the bit that probably will not be explained....and I personally cant make work.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: 3Nine on Jan 31, 10:40 AM 2017
I had a magic progression once. It made all my money disappear.  Poof!
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: falkor2k15 on Jan 31, 10:42 AM 2017
I had a magic progression once. It made all my money disappear.  Poof!
It wasn't the progression; it was the variance!  :wink:
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Turner on Jan 31, 11:06 AM 2017
STOP !!!!!!!!
Im moving these to reddwarf post. keep on topic-ish
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: denzie on Jan 31, 04:19 PM 2017
Betting repeaters isnt good enough especially if you are betting a coverage over cycles

Somehow, you have to make the numbers that are hitting pay for the ones that arnt

Correct

That cant be done just by a mild progression

Are you 100% sure? I mean did you actually tried it all ?

The net you are fishing with has holes in and just sewing them up after a cycle isnt good enough so
you have to get very big fish to pay for all the little ones that are escaping.

Catching a big fish isn't that hard if you know where and when to throw the bait

I g

In the case of TG, it seems to be some magic progression. Thats the bit that isnt explained.

thats the bit that probably will not be explained....and I personally cant make work.

That bit actually can be played on several ways imo .

One thing is for sure. His autograph where you talk about ain't it. Tried that myself too.
Been on this shit for months already now.

Anyway your much better than me in math...do you understand why the HE was break even after that group bets only after there numbers appeared?     >:D
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Jan 31, 04:24 PM 2017
If accuracy of bet selection doesn't increase, no progression can consistently win. Because all you then have is random bets of different size.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: denzie on Jan 31, 05:27 PM 2017
If accuracy of bet selection doesn't increase, no progression can consistently win. Because all you then have is random bets of different size.

Well it doesn't win each session. But it does win like 29/30ish.

Anyway let's forget this thread. Back to .....whatever  :)

GUT KTF 123 Ec or my previous posts....sorry but they fail....I guess we all have to walk the same path....
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: rouletteKEY on Jan 31, 05:28 PM 2017
If I have a halfway decent bet selection I can certainly carry out a one or two number bet for quite awhile and end in profit

Stop losses and a slight negative on the descent and a positive progression after it hits just to magnify the effect

The key is not spreading across alot of numbers...it's always been the same
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: RouletteGhost on Jan 31, 05:39 PM 2017
I just find it quite funny and comical that some people say they are sick of the same RBRBRB strategies

Then someone comes along talking about betting a very small amount of numbers and how it's working and had that same person says it's impossible

What happened to thinking and discussing different ideas only to have a turn into a shit show

Some people say they are tired of the same old ideas and to discuss different new ideas and then when you do it gets shut down as being impossible

This form is turning into the same vicious cycle the same thing over and over again

As much as some people think they know everything they don't
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: TurboGenius on Jan 31, 09:19 PM 2017
I actually have something else important to do but I did say I would explain it again so here we are.

I'll use another example but you'll have to use your imagination for some parts, don't worry - it will make sense when you're done reading.

We walk up after someone plays a session of 38 spins (0/00 wheel)
Lucky for us we can see every spin that happened in that session.
(I'll just run these off RNG just for the sake of explanation)
13 numbers never appeared
17 numbers showed up once
5 numbers showed up twice
1 number showed up three times
2 numbers showed up four times.

I can simplify this if it helps :
13 numbers never appeared.
25 numbers showed up at least once

8 of those numbers showed up at least twice
3 of those numbers showed up at least three times
2 numbers showed up four times.

But anyway - either way it's the same.
So I look at you and say "If you could go back in time and play these same spins, what would you do ?" and here I have a time machine (how convenient - I told you there's some imagination here)
Now you're going to give me some obvious answers I hope ?
You wouldn't bet a single thing on the 13 numbers that never appeared (why on earth would you ?)
You "could" bet on the numbers that showed up only once - but you would lose on those numbers
exactly at the house edge - so a bit silly of an idea. But that's up to you.
You Certainly would bet on the numbers that showed up twice - those 5 numbers would be a nice profit maker.
You Most Certainly would bet on the numbers that showed up three times ! - very nice profit from those.
And you would be a fool not to bet on the numbers that showed up four times !

So what kind of money would you put on them ?
Well, common sense would tell you that they all make profit regardless - but my time machine isn't going to be around in the future so you're going to have to make some choices.
You'll bet a minimal amount on the numbers that had 1 show
You'd bet more on the 2 show numbers
You'd bet even more on the 3 show numbers and
You'd bet a LOT on the 4 show numbers... This is a aggressive progression
and you're not worried because with the time machine you can't lose.

So all of this makes sense - and the naysayers can say "well we don't have a time machine".
And guess what - you don't need one.
I made this clear in other posts - those numbers that appeared 4 times were numbers that had appeared 3 times.
Those numbers that appeared 3 times were only numbers that appeared 2 times
and the numbers that appeared 2 times were only numbers that appeared once.
All of the numbers that never appeared ? They never appeared.......
Use the same logic on the next 38 spins that you don't know.... correct ? It's not rocket science.
You can say "There's no way of knowing the next spin..." and that is correct.
You can say "There's no way of knowing that a number with 1 show is going to be a number that has 2 or more shows" - and that is correct. BUT - the only numbers that will have 2 shows are numbers that appeared once. See ?
Steve rightly said that systems are useless.. "If accuracy of bet selection doesn't increase, no progression can consistently win."
Now your accuracy just increased (and greatly).
As a matter of fact - by NOT betting on numbers that never show you are no longer playing/winning/losing at the house edge.
You can test this - it's not hard to do. I did it at the other forum as an example.
Play every number on the table for 38 spins - you'll end at the house edge.
Play every number on the table but only once it shows - you won't end at the house edge.
Play every number on the table but only after it shows twice - again - you won't win/lose at the house edge.
You can continue this on for quite a while.
The "house edge" on a 38 pocket wheel is 2 numbers.
If you play every number on the table for 38 spins, you will be down 2 units - this is the house edge.
However - if you play every number Except for the last 2 numbers that end up appearing (this could be 150 spins or more ? it varies) You never play at the house edge at all.
For those who want to test things - there's where to begin.
The aggressive progression not only covers the numbers that appear "at average" if you choose to play them - it boosts your profits beyond flat betting and does not involve chasing a loss or digging out of a hole - it's not a negative progression, it's a positive one based on wins.

Thanks for reading, I can only hope this sinks in - and if not then you're on your own.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Madi on Jan 31, 11:13 PM 2017
We all know that its the average or law of third. How will you know that there will 3 hit will be 4 hit. Lets say there only 2 hits in 37 spin cycle. How can you overcome? Ye u might win sometimes but not all the times. The sequence of spin will kill this. Can u plz run a practical example like spin by spin? We can provide spin one by one if you want. Appreciate it
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: RouletteGhost on Jan 31, 11:16 PM 2017
Can u plz run a practical example like spin by spin? We can provide spin one by one if you want. Appreciate it

I can guarantee you this topic won't go in that direction lol
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Mortagon on Feb 01, 12:19 AM 2017
Imagine this with a positive progression.
That 17 hitter would return big bucks.

Keep the br low. If there's no clear hottie you reduce the losses this way
When to stop? If your hottie didn't show in 35 spins


On a hit add one chip on that #
Now take that session of ignatus with 17 hits. That would have won huge.
I've been looking in wiesbaden a lot . You can see at the bottom of each day how many times a # hits. Now go look many days and observe how many days there's a # that hits a lot more than average. Super hottie.
If you see that...then look how many days there's not a really hot one.
After you got that info....choose your br. And keep it low. For example 50 units/# and max 2#.  Now look how many br you win if you have a super hottie. You will see that you can lose a looooot of sessions and still win.
Or you can use 200u and need to win 5-10 sessions to recover 
Hoping not another bust comes b4 that
2# max 
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: deepred on Feb 01, 12:52 AM 2017
Hey Turbo, I think I get the Jist of what you are explaining. I have an airball machine at my local casino with a 25 cent min per number and would like to try this out.
                 What kind of bankroll would I need to play this.   Thks 
                                                                                                 Grant
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Madi on Feb 01, 01:47 AM 2017
Is it for rng or live wheel. If live wheel i dont know if rng no way.  I tried till 111 spin 3 cycle . Big down. If anyone comes with practical happy to assist. When i was chasing 2 nd hit i got 29 single hit. In 37 spin
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: denzie on Feb 01, 02:18 AM 2017
We all know if we get a super hottie how easily it wins. Like taking candy from a baby.

But what if we don't get one ? Keep going or reset the whole thing. .......

Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Feb 01, 03:13 AM 2017
Is it really a hottie, or just random?

If random, what good does reseting do?
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Feb 01, 03:15 AM 2017
Turbo thanks for your explanation but it's just saying after a few repeats, a number is more likely to spin. But this is untrue.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Turner on Feb 01, 04:55 AM 2017
Thanks for reading
Thanks for typing all that

Ive done nothing else for years now. This genre. Attacking repeats.

My issue is that many cycles never get past 2 repeats, i.e, all the repeats only hit twice, and there are many of them...12 or so (I think Madi referred to this)

So if you "win every time" you must keep going even though theres a big drawdown (in the above example)

or...in other words, you must keep going over several cycles.

This is where I am intersted.

1. have you always "won" in a fixed set of cycles, or can it be between say, 2 cycles and 7?

2. When you say "won", could you be only 6 units up after 5 cycles? (still a win)

(I think people confuse "I never lose" with "I make megga bucks every sitting")
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: wiggy on Feb 01, 03:36 PM 2017
After reading TG's in-depth post above, I will give my take on how I think it is roughly played.
The basic rules appear to be to wait until a number appears twice and then place a chip on that number.
If a number appears for the third time, add a further chip and keep repeating in this fashion for the rest of the cycle.

Here is the first chart of 37 spins and the results of following the above criteria.



Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: RouletteGhost on Feb 01, 03:38 PM 2017
We know what he is doing

Just not how

I don't think the how is important

The what is what's important

No matter how you slice the cake we are betting repeaters, not numbers that haven't been hit this cycle
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: wiggy on Feb 01, 03:43 PM 2017
This part is for the second cycle (spins 38 to 74) and this is where my interpretation comes into play.
What I think happens is that now you will only attack numbers that have so far had 3 hits.
Why? Because in the first cycle you were only betting on numbers that had appeared at least twice.
So carrying on with this line of thinking, you would now only bet numbers that had appeared 3 times for the start of the second cycle.
Number 6 which hit 5 times in the first cycle would now revert from a 4 chip bet to a 3 chip bet.
The few other numbers that had appeared 3 times will revert to a 1 chip bet.
Of course the bets will rise again as and when any of these numbers hit.

Here is the chart for the second lot of 37 spins and the results.



Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Madi on Feb 01, 04:35 PM 2017
@ wiggy

About the second cycle. What happen about the statement bet every number that landed on the table. If you only bet 3 hit on second cycle it is very possible that the 3 hit going down and other 2 hits number coming up with 3 hit may be 4 hit.you need to bet after 1st for every cycle.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: wiggy on Feb 01, 05:42 PM 2017
Madi, I see what you saying. Hot numbers can quickly turn cold and vice versa.
One thing about all this is the ease of playing in a live casino. I think it would be pretty difficult playing too many numbers with different chip sizes.
Here is a longer chart similar to the couple that I posted up several days ago. This one covers 10 cycles.
If you add up the numbers below expectation and the ones hitting expectation, it is sometimes adding up to 60% of the total at the end of a cycle.
Meaning the other 40% is taken up by the numbers hitting solely above expectation. Is this the variance factor in play?
Surely it makes more sense to play only the numbers above expectation as TG suggests and it also covers his point that if there are any bias numbers in play, you are more than likely to be on them and avoid the pockets that donate to the bias, 'hot' numbers. These can also run in cycles (so I believe) according to different characteristics and could play into this cycle theory nicely. Just my thoughts, I could be wrong. Maybe TG will see this and comment.



Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Madi on Feb 01, 07:35 PM 2017
Got ur point wiggy. U saying better playing the number performing above expectation. Ok lets make in shorter. I will give you 10 number and telling you at least you get 3 doublehit in 37 spin. With a positive progression how can we catch these whatever the spin sequence are?
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Bettingking on Feb 01, 10:28 PM 2017
Interesting....as a comparision:
If we bet 1 unit on each number that appears according to your example the result would be:
First 37 = +306 units
continuing on with no reset second 37 = +484 or with reset then +342

TOTAL = +790 units if continued
TOTAL = +648 units (2 single sessions clearing board after first 37 spins)

But of course this result would not happen every 2 cycles (74 spins) and losses would occur
Using 2 samples is not really saying a lot about consistency and the less samples the more luck takes a part (my opinion)
Also I would take profit after a certain number of spins and profit level so the greed level would kick in with some players.
This could have just as easily turned the other way with losses
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: denzie on Feb 02, 08:25 AM 2017
One thing about all this is the ease of playing in a live casino. I think it would be pretty difficult playing too many numbers with different chip sizes.

 :thumbsup:
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: wiggy on Feb 02, 10:09 AM 2017
Here are my second test results of cycle 1 and cycle 2.
Not a disaster by any means with just the -8 loss.
The idea of only betting numbers above the expectation does seem to limit the bets to short of a dozen numbers which probably just about makes it playable.
These numbers were taken from Table 1 at Wiesbaden 01/02/17. The number 25 hits another 6 times over the next available 58 spins (within 2 cycles) taking it's tally to 11 hits within 4 cycles. Meaning in cycle 3, number 25 would be staked at 2 units followed by 3 units and then 4 units. Cycle 4 would see number 25 staked at 3, 4 and 5 units. I think that's more than enough hits to take the whole thing into a decent profit. I will finish them 2 cycles of later. That's the thing looking at my other charts. After 10 cycles, you can sometimes see several numbers with some decent hits. But just one hitting nicely above expectation like the number 25 in this instance and it appears to be ok.








Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: wiggy on Feb 02, 04:38 PM 2017
I made a mistake in the second chart above regarding the number 1 and number 18.
On cycle 2, I needed to be betting all numbers that had 3 hits. Number 1 and number 18 never appeared at all. I forgot to include them in the results.
So that's and added 72 unit loss taking the grand total over the 2 cycles to -80.
I am working on cycles 3 and 4 now.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Madi on Feb 02, 05:14 PM 2017
Wiggy

Waiting for the result of 3 and 4 cycle. Lets see how it goes. But say to get plus playing around 150 spin doesnt worth. Turbo might have something special that we cant get. But either way negetive or positive both progression requiring big bank
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: wiggy on Feb 02, 05:15 PM 2017
At the end of the 3rd cycle, I am down 249 units.
Personally speaking, I wouldn't enjoy playing something like this. No disrespect to it's creator.
I also think I would have steam coming out of my ears trying to work out all the bets, lol. But then it's always the same. The author can play his own method without blinking. It doesn't mean the rest of us can. I am putting up the 3rd cycle chart and leaving it at that. Hopefully one day Turbo will share his strategy in full. I don't think I got the progression part right for a start. Mine isn't exactly an aggressive progression as TG suggests. I appreciate TG's efforts in providing some clues. It was fun to have a look at it.



Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Madi on Feb 12, 02:53 PM 2017
I thing TG is right. It needs big bankroll
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: rouletteKEY on Feb 12, 09:48 PM 2017
Bankroll is a key element in any gambling scenario and is seldom given enough emphasis

The casino's overwhelming cash edge means they can basically wait you out financially since you can never really get back in the game quickly if you escalate too fast because of table limits.

The dilemma then becomes the spread on where you start the progression vs those table limits and starting at a point that allows a reasonable amount of safety generally has you guessing whether its worth it because if you have $50-100,000 as a gambling bank you really don't want to start at $2 or nickel bets because the wins just aren't worth it based on your bank size

It's always something
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Madi on Feb 13, 05:34 AM 2017
I think $5000 should be ok. Even less would
Be fine. $2 starting bet too big. $1 starting bet is fine even some has 25c or less , start with that. No betselection is superior. In my view we need some kind of progression to overcome. Its not easy to beat a random game.come on in last 200 years people made different progression . Why? May be they fail or win . But the only answer of "when" is the progression.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Madi on Feb 13, 06:21 AM 2017
Thats not a normally used progression. I never seen that in roulette forum.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: maestro on Feb 25, 12:06 PM 2017
@ turbo are there more explanations to come and some math formulas or that was it...thx
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: probasah on Jul 30, 03:15 PM 2017
Here is the link to excel. I have tested 10 million spins and it seems to hold good. Hmm!! Warned about the excel formula though, it might have been tampered :o 8) ??? ::)

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8V2R2PUfxa7U1NNV05mMldKNGc/view?usp=sharing

Hy Pryianka

The Excel Tracker has a mistake in the AO column (wrong chip count when winning).
Attached the corrected version.
The progresion fails.

Regards,
Alex
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Pogo on Aug 02, 08:50 PM 2017
Long time lurker here and joined to reply to this thread with what I got out of what turbogenius has been saying in this thread and in many threads on GF.

I will say up front, I am quite likely wrong, it would not be the first time.

In a 37(European Roulette)/38 (American Roulette) spin cycle, there are going to be 3-5 numbers hit more than twice.

Using this he has, through testing worked out a positive progression for betting on numbers that have hit twice to win when they hit for the third or fourth time.  This really is not that hard to work out and if this is what he is doing, I can see why he is winning all the time.

Think about it.

Like I stated earlier I am quite possibly wrong, but in my, so far, limited testing it works.

Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: probasah on Aug 03, 05:04 AM 2017
Long time lurker here and joined to reply to this thread with what I got out of what turbogenius has been saying in this thread and in many threads on GF.

I will say up front, I am quite likely wrong, it would not be the first time.

In a 37(European Roulette)/38 (American Roulette) spin cycle, there are going to be 3-5 numbers hit more than twice.

Using this he has, through testing worked out a positive progression for betting on numbers that have hit twice to win when they hit for the third or fourth time.  This really is not that hard to work out and if this is what he is doing, I can see why he is winning all the time.

Think about it.

Like I stated earlier I am quite possibly wrong, but in my, so far, limited testing it works.

Hi pogo

The problem is, what is the entry point and the progression.
Solve that and you have yourself a Holy Grail.

Regards,
Alex
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: probasah on Aug 03, 05:05 AM 2017
To all RF users, a friendly recommendation to read this thread.

Alex:)
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: falkor2k15 on Aug 03, 05:14 AM 2017
Hi pogo

The problem is, what is the entry point and the progression.
Solve that and you have yourself a Holy Grail.

Regards,
Alex
Before considering a progression it would need to win flat-betting first, right? And a positive progression requires a win to progress, otherwise you would have to wait for the next set of 37 spins? I envisage a lot of waiting...
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Madi on Aug 03, 05:22 AM 2017
U can tell everyone how to play, where is the entry point and the progression.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Pogo on Aug 03, 06:19 AM 2017
Hi pogo

The problem is, what is the entry point and the progression.
Solve that and you have yourself a Holy Grail.

Regards,
Alex

U can tell everyone how to play, where is the entry point and the progression.

Reading both of those replies, it is very obvious you have either not read all of TurboGenius's posts, or if you have, you have not understood them.  The entry point is the easy part, the progression takes more working out and lots of trial and error, but it is basic math. 
Some of you have said he has posted riddles, I refute that, he has been very clear, it is just that not many have really read his posts properly.

Read his notes again, they are spread out over both this forum and GF and go back 2 years. He hasn't handed the solution completely to anyone on a platter and neither will I, but I understand why he got frustrated.  Besides, I could very well be wrong.

The way I play it does not win each cycle 100% of the time, but it comes pretty close.

A cryptic hint if you like:  Unless you get an absolutely perfect cycle, you will always lose before you win. Look at his graphs, they show that.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: probasah on Aug 03, 06:28 AM 2017
Reading both of those replies, it is very obvious you have either not read all of TurboGenius's posts, or if you have, you have not understood them.  The entry point is the easy part, the progression takes more working out and lots of trial and error, but it is basic math. 
Some of you have said he has posted riddles, I refute that, he has been very clear, it is just that not many have really read his posts properly.

Read his notes again, they are spread out over both this forum and GF and go back 2 years. He hasn't handed the solution completely to anyone on a platter and neither will I, but I understand why he got frustrated.  Besides, I could very well be wrong.

The way I play it does not win each cycle 100% of the time, but it comes pretty close.

A cryptic hint if you like:  Unless you get an absolutely perfect cycle, you will always lose before you win. Look at his graphs, they show that.

Hi pogo,

The instructions are indeed very clear. Repeaters do happen.  They cluster. The problem is the Money Management part. TurboGenius never told us that small part (1%) that makes all the difference between losing and winning. I`m not blaming him. It`s his choice.
Waiting for a lose can be a solution, how about waiting for a series of loses and then a win and bet after that?

Regards,
Alex
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: falkor2k15 on Aug 03, 06:41 AM 2017
Hi pogo,

The instructions are indeed very clear. Repeaters do happen.  They cluster. The problem is the Money Management part. TurboGenius never told us that small part (1%) that makes all the difference between losing and winning. I`m not blaming him. It`s his choice.
Waiting for a lose can be a solution, how about waiting for a series of loses and then a win and bet after that?

Regards,
Alex
Repeats don't cluster per se. It all depends how many numbers are @ 1 appearance will determine the probability for a repeat. The more numbers in sight of a repeat the more chance of clustering potential. 5 double streets will cluster more than a single double street, but the payout is less. So that part bears no significance.

Again, money management is a red herring. Win flat-betting first.

Waiting for a virtual win is another losing technique base around variance avoidance that doesn't work.

Repeats can help - but I think the above only serves to steer everyone astray from what really matters.

I suggest ignoring all vague talk of clusters, MM (positive or negative!), variance avoidance, and instead concentrate specifically on this more valid statement:
"In a 37(European Roulette)/38 (American Roulette) spin cycle, there are going to be 3-5 numbers hit more than twice."
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Aug 03, 06:47 AM 2017
Turbo has made claims that are fundamentally false. Things that his system is based on. I said it all before. I'd like to believe otherwise but his approach doesn't work.

There's simple proof. Do "hot numbers" have different odds of winning again anytime soon? No. Its super old gamblers fallacy. So the odds don't change. Payouts don't change. Nothing changes. What's left is just a typical progression. Its black and white. Its simple math. Simple logic.

Yet people will test short term data and think short term wins are proof. You'll get the same long term results if you bet on cold numbers.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Aug 03, 06:53 AM 2017
Its not just me that understands these fundamental facts. Its the entire casino community. Mathematicians. Statisticians. Anyone that understands basic math.

It is insanity to have such clear proof in front of your eyes and ignore it. Why ignore? Because of low volume testing? You think that's more reliable that far more extensive testing?

Show me one piece of tangible evidence that hot numbers change the odds. And if odds aren't changed, show me how progression is any different to a bunch of random bets of different sizes.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Pogo on Aug 03, 06:58 AM 2017
Hi pogo,

The instructions are indeed very clear. Repeaters do happen.  They cluster. The problem is the Money Management part. TurboGenius never told us that small part (1%) that makes all the difference between losing and winning. I`m not blaming him. It`s his choice.
Waiting for a lose can be a solution, how about waiting for a series of loses and then a win and bet after that?

Regards,
Alex


Read these posts:

RouletteGhost reply 49 (he gets most of it)
rouletteKEY reply 102 (he probably has it by now)
Turner reply 209 (knows what must be done, but hasn't worked on it enough)
TurboGenieus reply 218 (tells it all on a platter)

If you don't have it after reading them you wont get it at all.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: falkor2k15 on Aug 03, 07:00 AM 2017
I agree with Steve:
-Very Hot
-Hot
-Medium
-Cold
-Freezing

Repeat potential: Hot numbers don't have more chance than Freezing numbers!

Again, only useful statement so far:
"In a 37(European Roulette)/38 (American Roulette) spin cycle, there are going to be 3-5 numbers hit more than twice."

To add to this we have one from Reddwarf:
If I wait for a N repeats of a number and start betting on all numbers that repeated N times, the higher N, the higher the less unique numbers I need to bet on.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Pogo on Aug 03, 07:02 AM 2017
Its not just me that understands these fundamental facts. Its the entire casino community. Mathematicians. Statisticians. Anyone that understands basic math.

It is insanity to have such clear proof in front of your eyes and ignore it. Why ignore? Because of low volume testing? You think that's more reliable that far more extensive testing?

Show me one piece of tangible evidence that hot numbers change the odds. And if odds aren't changed, show me how progression is any different to a bunch of random bets of different sizes.

I am not sure where TurboGenius was leading with the odds bit Steve, but this works and I am sure many know it does and do not say a word.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: probasah on Aug 03, 07:02 AM 2017

Win flat-betting first.

Repeats can help - but I think the above only serves to steer everyone astray from what really matters.

"In a 37(European Roulette)/38 (American Roulette) spin cycle, there are going to be 3-5 numbers hit more than twice."

Hi Falkor

I absolutely agree with all your above points. I am a flat bet believer myself. One needs to have a solid bet selection and then think of money management.
The entry point is also important. Read my suggestion above: Bet entry: Wait for a Serie of loses and then a Win and enter there.

Regards,
Alex
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Pogo on Aug 03, 07:08 AM 2017
Hi Falkor

I absolutely agree with all your above points. I am a flat bet believer myself. One needs to have a solid bet selection and then think of money management.
The entry point is also important. Read my suggestion above: Bet entry: Wait for a Serie of loses and then a Win and enter there.

Regards,
Alex

Oh man, you are way off the mark.  Stop thinking so basic, read what has been posted. I totally get TurboGenius's frustration.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: probasah on Aug 03, 07:11 AM 2017
Oh man, you are way off the mark.  Stop thinking so basic, read what has been posted. I totally get TurboGenius's frustration.
Yes, pogo, you are right. I a wrong.

Attached 18 series of 5000 spins to confirm it.

Alex
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: nottophammer on Aug 03, 07:13 AM 2017
I suggest ignoring all vague talk of clusters, MM (positive or negative!), variance avoidance, and instead concentrate specifically on this more valid statement:
"In a 37(European Roulette)/38 (American Roulette) spin cycle, there are going to be 3-5 numbers hit more than twice."
Have you seen the light or something Mr F.
What does reference point 25 in GUT show
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: falkor2k15 on Aug 03, 07:16 AM 2017
Hi Falkor

I absolutely agree with all your above points. I am a flat bet believer myself. One needs to have a solid bet selection and then think of money management.
The entry point is also important. Read my suggestion above: Bet entry: Wait for a Serie of loses and then a Win and enter there.

Regards,
Alex
You are assuming two things:
1) There's more chance for a cluster of 2+ wins
2) That cluster pays out more in terms of risk/reward

So let's say we are betting double dozens (66%):
1) I wait for 1 virtual win and then I bet on the double dozens to win again
2) I may win more, but every time I lose, I lose TWICE as much compared to when I win

And when that virtual win does come, the potential for another win depends on how many numbers we are betting each time.

So unfortunately, waiting for a virtual win is a misnomer. 
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Pogo on Aug 03, 07:25 AM 2017
Yes, pogo, you are right. I a wrong.

Attached 18 series of 5000 spins to confirm it.

Alex
OK you play your way, but from what you have stated so far it is not how TurboGenius does, if your way wins, well done.

Have you seen the light or something Mr F.

He is getting closer and he has quoted the most relevant part towards getting it.

"In a 37(European Roulette)/38 (American Roulette) spin cycle, there are going to be 3-5 numbers hit more than twice."

Anyone who does not understand after reading the posts I outlined and the above quote, never will.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: falkor2k15 on Aug 03, 07:59 AM 2017
Read these posts:

RouletteGhost reply 49 (he gets most of it)
rouletteKEY reply 102 (he probably has it by now)
Turner reply 209 (knows what must be done, but hasn't worked on it enough)
TurboGenieus reply 218 (tells it all on a platter)

If you don't have it after reading them you wont get it at all.
37 spins cycles you will have numbers that hit 3 to 4 times

So when a number hits twice start betting it
OK good. This reflects the one valid statement so far.

Betting repeaters isnt good enough especially if you are betting a coverage over cycles

Somehow, you have to make the numbers that are hitting pay for the ones that arnt

That cant be done just by a mild progression and removal of non hitting numbers after a cycle.

The net you are fishing with has holes in and just sewing them up after a cycle isnt good enough so
you have to get very big fish to pay for all the little ones that are escaping.

I get all that, but the missing link is how.

In the case of TG, it seems to be some magic progression. Thats the bit that isnt explained.

thats the bit that probably will not be explained....and I personally cant make work.
Too vague. Progression isn't going to help unless the flat-betting strategy is figured out first.


...
The erosion of bankroll to the house edge is not inevitable at all and variance to a certain extent can be controlled...more so long term than short...but both have an element of control available

Just took the top sheet off my stack of spins
38 spins
1 - 5x
1- 4x
2 -3x
5 - repeats
13 - single hits

22 numbers hit
16 with nothing

next 6 spins
5 of the 6 hits came from numbers in the last 38 spins...and 22 is on the short side of the norm because of the 5 time and 4 time hitters...so there were plenty of numbers that had not hit in now 44 spins just sitting there waiting...while somebody plays those 16 sleepers they get one hit...the guy on the 22 that had hit...5 hits

next 6 spins (against the rolling 38 previous numbers)
4 hits on previously hit numbers...2 misses

next 6 spins
again 4 hits against 2 misses

Now if I play lets say 26 numbers (to get closer to the norm for examples sake) and get 4 hits and 2 misses every six spins without money management and stoplosses I am pretty close to the HE...but I killed it upfront in the first 38 spins (I probably picked a bad example...again a 5 and a 4 hitter are a little out of ordinary but wasn't gonna grab a second sheet for times sake)

But the player using sleepers or even a random sampling of numbers not taking into account what had already hit...that player is likely getting maybe a 50/50 ratio on this particular 26 number bet (I know each 26 number bet would have different results...just looking at one example with real spins I played)...I win 67%...there's an edge regardless of whoevers head is exploding with applying a belief that because 38 unique numbers can show...that they will show

But...if I can concentrate on a changing rotation of 20-28 numbers to select from out of the 38 available and look at hot wheel sectors and do a little (alot actually) of analysis of how to ride the waves of numbers as they appear and repeat and have enough bankroll to see things thru
Variance can be controlled, but here we are not using any process to control it. It's no different to saying that Red has to catch up with Black, but neither take on any extra pulling power should the other be above maths expectation of 50%. So here we are without any valid statements/facts that might help us use repeats to our advantage.

...
8 of those numbers showed up at least twice
3 of those numbers showed up at least three times
2 numbers showed up four times.
...
You "could" bet on the numbers that showed up only once - but you would lose on those numbers
exactly at the house edge - so a bit silly of an idea. But that's up to you.
You Certainly would bet on the numbers that showed up twice - those 5 numbers would be a nice profit maker.
You Most Certainly would bet on the numbers that showed up three times ! - very nice profit from those.
And you would be a fool not to bet on the numbers that showed up four times !

So what kind of money would you put on them ?
Well, common sense would tell you that they all make profit regardless - but my time machine isn't going to be around in the future so you're going to have to make some choices.
You'll bet a minimal amount on the numbers that had 1 show
You'd bet more on the 2 show numbers
You'd bet even more on the 3 show numbers and
You'd bet a LOT on the 4 show numbers... This is a aggressive progression
and you're not worried because with the time machine you can't lose.
...
Use the same logic on the next 38 spins that you don't know.... correct ? It's not rocket science.
You can say "There's no way of knowing the next spin..." and that is correct.
You can say "There's no way of knowing that a number with 1 show is going to be a number that has 2 or more shows" - and that is correct. BUT - the only numbers that will have 2 shows are numbers that appeared once. See ?
...
However - if you play every number Except for the last 2 numbers that end up appearing (this could be 150 spins or more ? it varies) You never play at the house edge at all.
...
The aggressive progression not only covers the numbers that appear "at average" if you choose to play them - it boosts your profits beyond flat betting and does not involve chasing a loss or digging out of a hole - it's not a negative progression, it's a positive one based on wins.
These are all solid statements and there's no erroneous mentions of variance avoidance techniques. Betting varying amounts is not the same as the positive progression suggested since, and flat-betting should suffice in terms of testing the above. So the above should be brought into context with the original statement that has more to say about the limits of repeats happening in 37-spins:

"In a 37(European Roulette)/38 (American Roulette) spin cycle, there are going to be 3-5 numbers hit more than twice."

To add to this we have one from Reddwarf:
If I wait for a N repeats of a number and start betting on all numbers that repeated N times, the higher N, the higher the less unique numbers I need to bet on.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Madi on Aug 03, 08:00 AM 2017
@ pago

Have u outlined something new? We finished it in february and this is august. Ye we got it in 37 spin there will be 3-5 number more than twice. So what? Can u win in 37 spin?
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Pogo on Aug 03, 08:07 AM 2017
@ pago

Have u outlined something new? We finished it in february and this is august. Ye we got it in 37 spin there will be 3-5 number more than twice. So what? Can u win in 37 spin?

Did you get it after 6 months?  It took me 6 hours of reading. I don't think this is something new.  In fact it is probably older than any of us on this board.

Can u win in 37 spin?

99 times out of 100, yes.  The other 1 will be a small loss.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Madi on Aug 03, 08:13 AM 2017
Then u r genious . Turbo win in couple of 37 spin cycle and u win in only one cycle. Very good . Show us some graph
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Madi on Aug 03, 08:21 AM 2017
In fact u r the first person that i have seen saying playing repeater in 37 spin you can win 99 %. Happy to follow you. Show us some more
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: nottophammer on Aug 03, 08:25 AM 2017
Mr P this is 1st 10 spins, of 517 games(https://www.rouletteforum.cc/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pichost.org%2Fimages%2F2017%2F08%2F03%2Ftemp_883134.png&hash=bb248a512f331fb2035d821dcc598f9d) (http://www.pichost.org/image/B3af) the 10/10, not repeated, of the 123 games, spin 11 was a repeat and happened 38 times.
So we can see its more likely a 1x will go to 2x in 1st 10 spins, what did winkel show with reference point 13, you/I could see a # could have hit twice.
Now comes the but, the 1x's that go to 2x's, that have now been increased can keep growing eating BR, on many posted GUT sheets we can see 2x's go 3x after 20th spin.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: nottophammer on Aug 03, 08:33 AM 2017
Entry point
If we are to bet hot #'s then #'s that have hit twice, the decision is do you wait for 20 spins or bet when one goes a 2x, hoping for an early hit.
Priyanka posted an excel sheet that you load the spins and shows where the repeats come, it was for me to use in KTF, but you can easily see the repeating #'s,
Its in Green and taotie dont like green  >:D
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Pogo on Aug 03, 08:35 AM 2017
Then u r genious . Turbo win in couple of 37 spin cycle and u win in only one cycle. Very good . Show us some graph

In fact u r the first person that i have seen saying playing repeater in 37 spin you can win 99 %. Happy to follow you. Show us some more

Read the threads I outlined.

Nottphammer, you have always been the closest of everyone on this board with your way of playing.

Have fun all, this is too frustrating for me and time for bed.  I am regretting even trying to help now.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Madi on Aug 03, 08:38 AM 2017
Thats been done even before u start reading
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Madi on Aug 03, 08:42 AM 2017
And turbo didnt claim he can win within first 37 spin . And dont refer to him.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: falkor2k15 on Aug 03, 09:55 AM 2017
OK you play your way, but from what you have stated so far it is not how TurboGenius does, if your way wins, well done.

He is getting closer and he has quoted the most relevant part towards getting it.

"In a 37(European Roulette)/38 (American Roulette) spin cycle, there are going to be 3-5 numbers hit more than twice."

Anyone who does not understand after reading the posts I outlined and the above quote, never will.
I hope I've done a good job here of separating the facts from the variance avoidance/money management crap. I think the concepts discussed here could help Turbo and others profit - but rather than variance or MM being the key to capitalizing on repeats - I would go as far as to say it's none of those but actually bringing in a parallel stream whose mention (so far) has been totally omitted. Here's an example of a parallel stream we could track alongside numbers:
1) Number positions/distances
2) Corners or splits

Without any of those I seriously doubt Turbo (or anyone) could come up with a winning strategy. Certainly that's the case playing for 1 repeat in 37 spins, but since we are playing for 2-4 repeats in 37 spins, I guess without further testing, I am not in a position to dismiss the existence of a more simpler strategy.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: RouletteGhost on Aug 03, 11:25 AM 2017
At the end of the day I don't think turbo is lying

He is a straight up guy

If he says he is winning with repeaters I take his word for it

You however, are full of bullshit. Always have been. All goes back to your "millionaires system"

I feel bad for your forum members.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: nottophammer on Aug 03, 11:49 AM 2017
I actually have something else important to do but I did say I would explain it again so here we are.

I'll use another example but you'll have to use your imagination for some parts, don't worry - it will make sense when you're done reading.

We walk up after someone plays a session of 38 spins (0/00 wheel)
Lucky for us we can see every spin that happened in that session.
(I'll just run these off RNG just for the sake of explanation)
13 numbers never appeared
17 numbers showed up once
5 numbers showed up twice
1 number showed up three times
2 numbers showed up four times.

I can simplify this if it helps :
13 numbers never appeared.
25 numbers showed up at least once

8 of those numbers showed up at least twice
3 of those numbers showed up at least three times
2 numbers showed up four times.

But anyway - either way it's the same.
So I look at you and say "If you could go back in time and play these same spins, what would you do ?" and here I have a time machine (how convenient - I told you there's some imagination here)
Now you're going to give me some obvious answers I hope ?
You wouldn't bet a single thing on the 13 numbers that never appeared (why on earth would you ?)
You "could" bet on the numbers that showed up only once - but you would lose on those numbers Remember this line
exactly at the house edge - so a bit silly of an idea. But that's up to you.
You Certainly would bet on the numbers that showed up twice - those 5 numbers would be a nice profit maker.
You Most Certainly would bet on the numbers that showed up three times ! - very nice profit from those.
And you would be a fool not to bet on the numbers that showed up four times !

So what kind of money would you put on them ?
Well, common sense would tell you that they all make profit regardless - but my time machine isn't going to be around in the future so you're going to have to make some choices.
You'll bet a minimal amount on the numbers that had 1 show What was said above,what did reply 270 show, more repeats happen in a games 1st 10 spins,These 1X's are not really hot are they, r they not hot when they hit twice?Decision time, do you wait 8 spins and see if Vaddi's missed the boat, wait to see if goes 10/10, or wait for a number to hit twice,
You'd bet more on the 2 show numbers
You'd bet even more on the 3 show numbers and
You'd bet a LOT on the 4 show numbers... This is a aggressive progression
and you're not worried because with the time machine you can't lose.

So all of this makes sense - and the naysayers can say "well we don't have a time machine".
And guess what - you don't need one.
I made this clear in other posts - those numbers that appeared 4 times were numbers that had appeared 3 times.
Those numbers that appeared 3 times were only numbers that appeared 2 times
and the numbers that appeared 2 times were only numbers that appeared once.
All of the numbers that never appeared ? They never appeared.......
Use the same logic on the next 38 spins that you don't know.... correct ? It's not rocket science.
You can say "There's no way of knowing the next spin..." and that is correct.
You can say "There's no way of knowing that a number with 1 show is going to be a number that has 2 or more shows" - and that is correct. BUT - the only numbers that will have 2 shows are numbers that appeared once. See ?
Steve rightly said that systems are useless.. "If accuracy of bet selection doesn't increase, no progression can consistently win."
Now your accuracy just increased (and greatly).
As a matter of fact - by NOT betting on numbers that never show you are no longer playing/winning/losing at the house edge.
You can test this - it's not hard to do. I did it at the other forum as an example.
Play every number on the table for 38 spins - you'll end at the house edge.
Play every number on the table but only once it shows - you won't end at the house edge.
Play every number on the table but only after it shows twice - again - you won't win/lose at the house edge.
You can continue this on for quite a while.
The "house edge" on a 38 pocket wheel is 2 numbers.
If you play every number on the table for 38 spins, you will be down 2 units - this is the house edge.
However - if you play every number Except for the last 2 numbers that end up appearing (this could be 150 spins or more ? it varies) You never play at the house edge at all.
For those who want to test things - there's where to begin.
The aggressive progression not only covers the numbers that appear "at average" if you choose to play them - it boosts your profits beyond flat betting and does not involve chasing a loss or digging out of a hole - it's not a negative progression, it's a positive one based on wins.

Thanks for reading, I can only hope this sinks in - and if not then you're on your own.

So Turbs is not wrong, i use a 37 #'d wheel, i'd hope you've looked at GUT and got an understanding of when the non-hits cross, but in GUT you wont be looking for repeats, if you use the paper tracker you'll get to visualise where the repeats happen, where/when 1x's go 2x's then3,4X's.
In KTF, does  countback not show how fast non-hits come, remember when you start all 37 are now due, being the larger group, why should they not go 10 or even 15 consecutive wins, if your waiting for a 2 hit you'll have spent nothing,only your time, lets say 15 spins have gone and all where non-hit, only 22 more spins, whats usual for 37 spins 23/24/25 numbers to show once, so when your 2X shows how many spins will 2x's grow before they go 3X, you are going to have to test or use shown data
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: denzie on Aug 03, 11:56 AM 2017


In a 37(European Roulette)/38 (American Roulette) spin cycle, there are going to be 3-5 numbers hit more than twice.

On average 3. But what you gonna do if it's only 1 or nothing at all  ???
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: denzie on Aug 03, 12:04 PM 2017
Pogo....Thats Not how TG plays.
How many test you've done ?
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: nottophammer on Aug 03, 12:07 PM 2017
Hi ya Ausguy, been a while since we crossed swords, hope you are well.

Here is 3 games from MPR today, not all at the same time, bit scruffy, but its gone from 5109 to 5472 using a starting unit of $1,

I just watch the spins/ trot, bet on non-hit or for a repeat indicated by countback, taking into account avg to hit for non-hit and if non-hit are fast, bet for repeat, biggest bet was for the 28th non-hit in 2nd game of 60 spins, why the bet for the 28th, reason is 26 have come in 40 spins, avg for 60 spins is 30 non-hit,so 4 more in 20 spins, and as you see got 29 in 60 spins,

Average, gives chance for both non-hit and repeats, you just need to learn the trot, you like that Priyanka, Notto's on about the trot again :thumbsup:

Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: nottophammer on Aug 03, 12:12 PM 2017
Just looked at the sheet, 9/10, 10/10,9/10 look at the 10/10 spin 11 repeat, what did i say in reply 270 about 10/10, look at spin 12 hot :lol:
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: celescliff on Aug 03, 02:26 PM 2017
Here are some stats. All these are individual sets of 10 million spins.

In 37 spins to expect a third hit:
Number of spins: 9999990
Number of cycles of 37 spins: 270270
Cycles with three hits: 265475 / 270270
Percentage: 98%

In 74 spins to expect a fourth hit:
Number of spins: 9999990
Number of cycles of 74 spins: 135135
Cycles with four hits: 135122 / 135135
Percentage: 99%

In 111 spins to expect a fifth hit:
Number of spins: 9999990
Number of cycles of 111 spins: 90090
Cycles with five hits: 90090 / 90090
Percentage: 100%

In 111 spins to expect a sixth hit:
In 74 spins to expect a sixth hit:
Number of spins: 9999990
Number of cycles of 111 spins: 90090
Cycles with six hits: 90090 / 90090
Percentage: 100%


Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: probasah on Aug 03, 02:47 PM 2017
Here are some stats. All these are individual sets of 10 million spins.

In 37 spins to expect a third hit:
Number of spins: 9999990
Number of cycles of 37 spins: 270270
Cycles with three hits: 265475 / 270270
Percentage: 98%

In 74 spins to expect a fourth hit:
Number of spins: 9999990
Number of cycles of 74 spins: 135135
Cycles with four hits: 135122 / 135135
Percentage: 99%

In 111 spins to expect a fifth hit:
Number of spins: 9999990
Number of cycles of 111 spins: 90090
Cycles with five hits: 90090 / 90090
Percentage: 100%

In 111 spins to expect a sixth hit:
In 74 spins to expect a sixth hit:
Number of spins: 9999990
Number of cycles of 111 spins: 90090
Cycles with six hits: 90090 / 90090
Percentage: 100%

Any 37/37 singles showing up in the 10 million spins ? ( sleepers) How about :ZERO :)

Repeaters are the way to go.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: celescliff on Aug 03, 03:04 PM 2017
Any 37/37 singles showing up in the 10 million spins ? ( sleepers) How about :ZERO :)

Repeaters are the way to go.

Yes this is any single number and zero is also included (as it should always be).
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Madi on Aug 03, 03:04 PM 2017
No doubt turbo has done a very good job and helped others for free. It took him years to conclude. Thanks for him. Make a "go fund turbo" and share winning. Haha
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: cht on Aug 03, 05:00 PM 2017
Here are some stats. All these are individual sets of 10 million spins.

In 37 spins to expect a third hit:
Number of spins: 9999990
Number of cycles of 37 spins: 270270
Cycles with three hits: 265475 / 270270
Percentage: 98%

In 74 spins to expect a fourth hit:
Number of spins: 9999990
Number of cycles of 74 spins: 135135
Cycles with four hits: 135122 / 135135
Percentage: 99%

In 111 spins to expect a fifth hit:
Number of spins: 9999990
Number of cycles of 111 spins: 90090
Cycles with five hits: 90090 / 90090
Percentage: 100%

In 111 spins to expect a sixth hit:
In 74 spins to expect a sixth hit:
Number of spins: 9999990
Number of cycles of 111 spins: 90090
Cycles with six hits: 90090 / 90090
Percentage: 100%
What is the % for 4th hit in 37 spins and 5th hit in 74 spins ? Thanks
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: celescliff on Aug 03, 05:11 PM 2017
What is the % for 4th hit in 37 spins and 5th hit in 74 spins ? Thanks

I can make that test in a couple of days. On vacation right now.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Pogo on Aug 03, 08:13 PM 2017
Pogo....Thats Not how TG plays.
How many test you've done ?

In a cycle how many numbers do you think TurboGenius bets on Denzie?

A lot of tests, I have spent at least 10 times the hours on testing to what it took for me to read what TurboGenius posted and work this out.

I have a few thousand graphs that show this works, but won't be supplying them to the clueless or nay sayers just because they can't work it out.  This works flat betting, but the use of a positive progression boosts the winnings on the really good cycles.  TurboGenius talks about three cycles because if you lose on one, you will win on the other two making up for the occasional loss on a cycle.

TurboGenius has been very generous supplying the information he has supplied.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: romano0327 on Aug 03, 09:33 PM 2017
Pogo, have been trying lots of methods for hours on RX to get advantage of the 3th, 4th and 5th,repeaters, but my tests keep loosing in the long run, would you please be so king to explain to me how you tested his strategy to get positive results.

Thank you,
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: DoctorSudoku on Aug 03, 09:36 PM 2017

  This works flat betting,


Interesting.

I have done testing (using my recorded spins of actual wheels and airball wheels) on repeaters fairly extensively over the last few months (2-peaters becoming 3-peaters and 3-peaters becoming 4-peaters).

On some occasions, when the repeats tend to occur early on in a cycle, flat betting works. However, on most other occasions some negative progression is usually necessary.

On other threads, Denzie has similarly indicated that flat betting usually does not work for him and he has to use negative progressions to make profits.

Anyway, I will keep tinkering with repeaters to see if betting on repeaters can be made profitable using flat betting only.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Pogo on Aug 04, 12:51 AM 2017
So Turbs is not wrong

No he is spot on, just amazing, but not surprising that he is the only one who has shared this.  There is no way that others have not already discovered what he has, with the number of people that troll these forums.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: probasah on Aug 04, 02:23 AM 2017
No he is spot on, just amazing, but not surprising that he is the only one who has shared this.  There is no way that others have not already discovered what he has, with the number of people that troll these forums.

Hey pogo,

That is one of the reasons i brought this thread alive to everyone's attention. It would have been lost forever in the mass of garbage threads you see everywhere. You see, there are still good hearted people out there. TG is one of them.
I would strongly recommend to everyone serious about this game to save a copy of this method dor offline study.
Its not the method itself we are talking about, but the whole principle at hand.
And yes, i agree with you there are a lot of people that want this method silenced.

Simple rule: follow repeaters!

Merry Xmas 😀
Alex
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: nottophammer on Aug 04, 02:33 AM 2017
Hi Pogo
That GUT paper tracker gives a perfect visual of the trot, from it you can see how the cold starting 37 non-hit numbers are behaving, how they behave indicates when and if its worth trying for a repeat.
To try for a repeat you'll need to have read and studied various methods, i've posted many charts in green that show this thing called the trot. I've even shown games in the ROTT topic, as all this game is, is about the starting larger group the non-hit, then non-hit v 1 hit and later non-hit v >1x = 0x,1x,>1x, its like this so called genius said to have a 2x you'll need a 1x, but where do the 1x come from, that large starting 37, learn how these 37 behave and your on a winner, no need for computers steve >:D
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Aug 04, 02:39 AM 2017
I'm sorry but there is no substantiating information to indicate Turbo's approach is anything but classic fallacy. Repeaters? Come on this is really old news.

I've explained it many times before, as have others. It is not being understood. You guys are wasting your time. Eventually you'll know this, and I know everyone needs to go through the natural course themselves, but if you are actually interested in the truth... then carefully read and try to understand my previous posts.

And Notto, I couldnt give a rat's pink ass if you or anyone didnt like the idea of computers. All I'm trying to do here is save people time and energy. This is all really old news.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: nottophammer on Aug 04, 03:21 AM 2017
And Notto, I couldnt give a rat's pink ass if you or anyone didnt like the idea of computers. All I'm trying to do here is save people time and energy. This is all really old news.
Works both ways, but as you own the site i'll understand why i see the waffle so much.

Steve just had 61 spins on MPR, that i dont mind using, as if it is riggid just won 234 units

Heres the 1st 40 spins
(https://www.rouletteforum.cc/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pichost.org%2Fimages%2F2017%2F08%2F04%2Ftemp_258388.png&hash=fdc3679edbafe9e895ca395685406f91) (http://www.pichost.org/image/BAP1)
See steve,pogo how good countback is for showing the trot, end 23,1 so 14 non-hit came in the spins 11-40. As for repeats this is a good game, but nothing has gone R4, so the ? is how many R3 will come and need to be bet
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: falkor2k15 on Aug 04, 03:23 AM 2017
I'm currently testing dozen repeats in 4 spins (microcosm of this topic) without a parallel stream, and so far there is no edge...

(https://s2.postimg.org/4lzb0zobt/phpdozens.png)

Below are the most basic stats for this, showing the dozen responsible for the repeat, along with the spin number (in brackets):

(https://s2.postimg.org/88d1u3p61/dozenrepeats4spins.png)

GENERAL

1 repeat   45%
2 repeats   52%
3 repeats   4%

Repeat 1 (same stats as Dozen Cycles)   
Spin 2   33%
Spin 3   44%
Spin 4   23%
   
Repeat 2   
Spin 3   11%
Spin 4   44%
No Repeat   45%
   
Repeat 3   
Spin 4   4%
No Repeat   96%


REPEAT 1

Spin 2   33%
Spin 3   44%
Spin 4   23%

REPEAT 2

Repeat 1 = spin 2   
Spin 3   33%
Spin 4   45%
No Repeat   22%

Repeat 1 = spin 3   
Spin 4   66%
No Repeat   34%

Repeat 1 = spin 4   
No Repeat   100%

Dozen 1, Spin 2…   
1(3)   33%
1(4)   22%
2(4)   11%
3(4)   12%
No Repeat   22%

Dozen 1, Spin 3…   
1(4)   32%
2(4)   17%
3(4)   17%
No Repeat   34%

REPEAT 3

Repeat 1 = spin 2   
Spin 4   11%
No Repeat   89%

Repeat 1 = spin 3   
No Repeat   100%

Repeat 1 = spin 2; Repeat 2 = spin 3   
Spin 4   33%
No Repeat   67%

Repeat 1 = spin 2; Repeat 2 = spin 4   
No Repeat   100%

Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: nottophammer on Aug 04, 03:36 AM 2017
HERE IS THE REST OF THE SPINS
(https://www.rouletteforum.cc/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pichost.org%2Fimages%2F2017%2F08%2F04%2Ftemp_908404.png&hash=04e53756d1a59189947d47c421bc4cd5) (http://www.pichost.org/image/BVt5)
so as at spin 60 we could see 30.5 non-hit, we have had 23, so 7 more could show, and we see 6 came, spin 61 is the #22.

I've timed it for you steve 7:37 you could look over the bets, but its using avg, steve so avg is a waste of time i suppose.

The other 2 games of 60 spins where posted somewhere on this forum yesterday, so gone from 5472 units to 5932 units.

Study well students
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: nottophammer on Aug 04, 03:39 AM 2017
Oh yeah steve like Maestro it froze at spin 55
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: nottophammer on Aug 04, 03:48 AM 2017
Steve or anyone do you think these spins came from MPR, Pri +50
Whats the starting 10 spins 9/10
what could be the non-hit count at 39/40, 24 non-hit, gave 27, +3 so fast game, 8,+3, usual or avg would be 7,+2 in spins 11-20, 12,+2 spot on to avg for spins 21-30 and +3 at spin 40, just use your avg to hit and known Max to decide when to bet, as Alexander says, simples
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: nottophammer on Aug 04, 03:51 AM 2017
Pri thanks for the tester
(https://www.rouletteforum.cc/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pichost.org%2Fimages%2F2017%2F08%2F04%2Ftemp_498374.png&hash=084beebd96df50cf06b7449fd22a1b4a) (http://www.pichost.org/image/BX1r)
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Aug 04, 04:04 AM 2017
Notto when you have a win rate above 1 and with a relevant amount of spins, I'll pay attention. I don't even know which account is yours
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: nottophammer on Aug 04, 04:20 AM 2017
Steve i dont want you to pay attention to me, you have your way and i have mine, only problem i have is i play on FOBT as its more convient than travelling 40 odd miles to a B+M, This is why i find your MPR a good place to try out things.
I have been #1 with TTTKA some time back, but like the Guvnor( winkel) i had a reckless moment and just bet and bet, but as it is micky mouse it does not matter, the only place that does matter is in the BOOKIES on there fair rng.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: nottophammer on Aug 04, 05:05 AM 2017
Just now end 6011
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: nottophammer on Aug 04, 05:06 AM 2017
off out now for xray of hands and feet, could be RA, see ya
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: cht on Aug 04, 06:24 AM 2017
WHERE there's a significant population bias, I think notto calls it "trot", falkor calls it "streams", this bias seems to carry through into the latter spins 'repeating' the earlier trot/streams.(based on notto few examples) IF this holds true over a larger sample size, then ... it's impressive.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Aug 04, 06:32 AM 2017
There is no trot or stream. Just bad understanding of basic math and probability.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: cht on Aug 04, 06:36 AM 2017
There is no trot or stream. Just bad understanding of basic math and probability.
You may be right. As in almost all cases when tested over large sample size it fails badly. Anyway, no harm to check it out.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Aug 04, 06:57 AM 2017
I agree, but at least a lesson should be learned from each failure.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: cht on Aug 04, 07:45 AM 2017
The main lesson learned from failures is to relate whatever 'idea' to the physical aspect of the wheel.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Aug 04, 07:52 AM 2017
 well it should be. But most people forget about the wheel, when actually its all about the wheel.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: maestro on Aug 04, 08:44 AM 2017
Quote
when actually its all about the wheel


yeah...what about it..is just game of numbers...if wheel was octagon..would you do better...<and results are random>...
i do not think so
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: celescliff on Aug 04, 10:43 AM 2017
Here you go cht, the ones you requested:

In 37 spins to expect a fourth hit:
Number of spins: 9999990
Number of cycles of 37 spins: 270270
Cycles with four hits: 134963 / 270270
Percentage: 49%

In 74 spins to expect a fifth hit:
Number of spins: 9999990
Number of cycles of 74 spins: 135135
Cycles with five hits: 122565 / 135135
Percentage: 90%
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: wiggy on Aug 04, 11:43 AM 2017
(https://www.rouletteforum.cc/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pichost.org%2Fimages%2F2017%2F08%2F04%2Ftemp_931497.png&hash=75e4941c946963b619ae65c068cffb3d) (http://www.pichost.org/image/BDu9)

(https://www.rouletteforum.cc/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pichost.org%2Fimages%2F2017%2F08%2F04%2Ftemp_374561.png&hash=a6df1c99daaf687b41b731a6f6bc7a0f) (http://www.pichost.org/image/BN8Z)(https://www.rouletteforum.cc/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pichost.org%2Fimages%2F2017%2F08%2F04%2Ftemp_919615.png&hash=5830e7e861d045b4351b3b2e155ce0a2) (http://www.pichost.org/image/BulD)

The above chart might be useful as a guide. Personally speaking, I would ignore everything Turbo has said relating to repeats and follow Notto's good advice. Then again, that's just one man's opinion!

p.s. Not sure why it uploaded the second half of the chart twice!





Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: nottophammer on Aug 04, 12:18 PM 2017
Good to see ya a round wiggy, how those woodpeckers up your way :lol:
anyway back from hospital and you can see had another couple of games on MPR, those 2 games gone from 6011 up to 6296, watching the invisible trot
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: romano0327 on Aug 04, 12:27 PM 2017
Hello Nottophammer,

I am following you, I definitely think that this is the way to go, and have been testing for hours on RX, but I still dont get the results that you are getting on your test, pherhaps I am doing it wrong, could you please so kind to give me some guidance?

I am betting on 2`s to become 3`s, and 3`s to become 4`s and so on,for a total of 3 cycles (Also adding one chip to every winning number from the bets placed/ Positive progression), could you plase explainto me how you are testing the method?

Are you betting from the beggining for 1`s to become 2`s as well? or are you waiting for a certain number of spins until you get the first repeater.

Thank you Nottophammer,
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: nottophammer on Aug 04, 03:20 PM 2017
romano0327
i'd rather not known about repeaters/hotties, as i like to bet non-hits, but sometime later i re-read GUT.

Now GUT is a good read, Winkel gave reference points13,25,37, these references show how 0x's have gone 1x's and maybe 2x's, to me its better to wait till 20 spins and then bet the 1x's to go 2x's, if it comes before 20th spin you wont have lost any units as you are waiting.
But now with more data in the average document posted with 500 games, it appears that a repeat comes more often,in the 1st 10 spins, ie, 9/10, more than 10/10 no repeat(https://www.rouletteforum.cc/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pichost.org%2Fimages%2F2017%2F08%2F04%2Ftemp_858544.png&hash=e52a39fbddd774e31a4c53a4b5df8c4c) (http://www.pichost.org/image/BfWs)
so now if we start to bet the1x's you'll probably get a win, like in the earlier posted game today, here it is again
now if we start to bet the 1x's we'd have bet the 7,1x's for 28 units and win,+8. Now you drop the 1x's and just bet the 2x's, the #10 and any more that come, now this is where you need to keep an eye on the win value 36 the 35/1, the longer the 2'xs go without hitting for the third time, will get you nearer to a minus win total, but in this game we see the #10 is the only # being bet and wins. Again drop the others and just bet those that hit for a third time untill a win, again give thought to the win value, if it goes long you could increase the units on those being bet, just a thought. Again the #10 R3, win.
Now do you stop or carry on?
If you did you'd only be betting the #10 untill the #23 caught up, now making 2#'s to be bet, look what came next.
 A lovely example, but it dont always go like this, so test on MPR, its free, but dont say its RNG not live spins or big steve will be after you.
(https://www.rouletteforum.cc/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pichost.org%2Fimages%2F2017%2F08%2F04%2Ftemp_642802.png&hash=d5e46be1a776917bc87caacffcd636d1) (http://www.pichost.org/image/Bhu7)

Now look this is how i play you see in grey countback, that is the 15.8 non-hit, that usuaally come in spins 11-40, the invisible trot that Steve and others can not see.
So if you go back to the reply with the posted sheet you'll see time Steve smilee face, you can see i waited costing nothing and bet 22 units as the 16th non-hit had missed its avg to hit and won. next you can see i've waited and bet 21 units to get the 17th non-hit and won. So thats me betting for non-hit, but the next bet is for repeats as watching the non-hits, hit fast, countback is showing they are to far a head and repeats are needed to slow the invisible trot down, so you see i bet the 21, non-hits that had come twice and won both bets, why did i stop, because they avg to hit in 3 spins, the non-hit after the 19th non-hit has come.
Its still watch the invisible trot and the 23rd is in and the trot is still fast, so i wait the 3 avg to hit spins, 1 spin 173, 2nd spin 127 and 3rd 69 times, the max is 17, spins, so 3 have gone and waited costing nothing to see if the 15 non-hit in spins 11-40 would hit, but we see its 23,so -1 on the 15. Now whats the avg for 60 spins, answer 30.5, so as 23 have come, i/you could see another 7 non-hit come, so at spin 41 i started to bet for the 24th non-hit, 7 spins in total and win. I bet 13 units for the remaining 13 and win as the repeats seemed to many, you can see it ended 28 in 60 spins, 5 of the 7 appeared, we also know that the 29th was spin 61 #22

(https://www.rouletteforum.cc/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pichost.org%2Fimages%2F2017%2F08%2F04%2Ftemp_329535.png&hash=cb062e662df6c160ecc1d4342495309d) (http://www.pichost.org/image/BiZQ)
Countback bet for non-hit and repeats, what does LOTT say for 37 spins,23,24 or 25 is usual, countback shows 23rd could be here, but its showing its been fast, so to slow it,it needs REPEATS
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: nottophammer on Aug 04, 03:27 PM 2017
to see the above game go to KTF and look at the 61 spins tester you can see the repeats nice with priyankas tester. all 6 games are there
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: romano0327 on Aug 04, 03:44 PM 2017
That was a very good explanation Nottophammer, I appreciate the time and the effort, I will start playing this way on RX, I already read GUT so thats a good thing, I will be posting my results to keep you updated.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: romano0327 on Aug 04, 04:14 PM 2017
By the way Nottophammer, for how long have you been playing this way? Has it survived the long run?
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: nottophammer on Aug 04, 04:32 PM 2017
By the way Nottophammer, for how long have you been playing this way? Has it survived the long run?
Do you mean just watching the trot, to bet either non-hit or repeats.
Or Denzies and turbos betting for repeats/hotties
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: nottophammer on Aug 04, 05:05 PM 2017
romano
When playing roulette, some will say rng in the bookies (licensed betting shop)is not roulette, but who cares. what they ask is what i'm doing, well the 1st ? is anything due, answer yes, all 37 #'s are now due, some look and think i'm mad, but i have to tell them to imagine a seesaw and 37 is touching the floor, so all the non-hit have to hit to get the 1 hits to the floor, to get the 1x's down the non-hit have to hit, so as they are the starting larger group, should they not hit most for X spins.
How do you work with X spins, know the averages for the non-hit to hit in.
My data says that up to the 19th non-hit, they avg to hit in 2 spins, then up to the 26th non-hit they avg to hit in 3 spins and up to the 30th non-hit is 4 spins, next is to know there max to hit.
Now if you accept 15.8 non-hit come in spins11-40, this is where countback comes into play.
Have you looked at reply 29 & 44 in, Are there really 37 possible outcomes? really good info. This is why countback is good at watching the trot that some deny is there, so this is why you need to study the trot of the non-hit, so a game is about 0x, 1x and >1x, it really is that simple, once you see how they come.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: nottophammer on Aug 04, 05:18 PM 2017
romano
Just started working on Jackpot 247 game for today, aired on sky tv early this morning, i tape every game and this is where the 500 games comes from, i also have avg data for rng from UK bookies.

Here we see why maybe betting the 1x's straight away is the way, as repeat in 1st 10 spins looks to happen more than 10 spins no repeat.
(https://www.rouletteforum.cc/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pichost.org%2Fimages%2F2017%2F08%2F04%2Ftemp_391705.png&hash=359c0dfaa3c33742fe7f4a5fb1e865c6) (http://www.pichost.org/image/Bgly)
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: nottophammer on Aug 04, 05:22 PM 2017
countback added
(https://www.rouletteforum.cc/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pichost.org%2Fimages%2F2017%2F08%2F04%2Ftemp_554250.png&hash=53b12a7ac3fbbf56e91d842e0bf35884) (http://www.pichost.org/image/BjbL)
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: denzie on Aug 04, 05:26 PM 2017
In a cycle how many numbers do you think TurboGenius bets on Denzie?
As less as possible. If possible only one

TurboGenius has been very generous supplying the information he has supplied.
Yep
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: denzie on Aug 04, 05:29 PM 2017
This works flat betting

No it doesn't. Even TG pointed that out .
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: denzie on Aug 04, 05:30 PM 2017

Simple rule: follow repeaters!


Yep  :love:

Simple exercise.  Bet all numbers that come up with a 1-2-4-8-16-32-.....Progression. Thats the basics.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: romano0327 on Aug 04, 05:36 PM 2017
Nottophammer I understand your point and it makes a lot of sense, everything is due at some point. Even if we dont know exactly when, we can still use the statistical information available that tells us when things are at least expected to happen. I do have a question, so the way to take advantage of this would be to wait for 20 spins and look at the non-hit, and start betting them and expect to hit one every two spins, is that correct?
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: romano0327 on Aug 04, 05:42 PM 2017
Denzie, do you mean the 1x numbers? Or repeaters (2x) ? and after a hit do you continue to bet on the same numbers to hope for a 3x hit?
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: nottophammer on Aug 04, 05:43 PM 2017
(https://www.rouletteforum.cc/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pichost.org%2Fimages%2F2017%2F08%2F04%2Ftemp_662751.png&hash=b276fb43d80fc3477b57d6e789f48070) (http://www.pichost.org/image/BcgS)
So invisible trot is fast, the 15th non-hit could have come at spin 23/24, the next 10 spins is where topic WTF usually starts, read Celticknits replies.
Now you'd won with the #13 and would now be betting all R1's to go R2, gradually get more to bet, so R2 needs to come.
(https://www.rouletteforum.cc/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pichost.org%2Fimages%2F2017%2F08%2F04%2Ftemp_613947.png&hash=73a19aadcf679dac8cba77c8e015c3d5) (http://www.pichost.org/image/BHto)
Now you've won 26 units with #13.
But betting the non-hit the larger group you could now walk with +34 units, and now think about repeats, by betting all 15 non-hit that have come
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: denzie on Aug 04, 05:44 PM 2017
have been testing for hours on RX

I am betting on 2`s to become 3`s, and 3`s to become 4`s and so on,for a total of 3 cycles (Also adding one chip to every winning number from the bets placed/ Positive progression

And what did you noticed?  The further you go the harder it gets to come out winning? 
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: romano0327 on Aug 04, 05:53 PM 2017
Denzie, so basically what you mean is to bet numbers that have hit 2x with the progression 1-2-4-8-16-32 (If one of them hits and becomes a 3x, then bet 2 units on it, if it hits again and becomes a 4x then bet 4 units, and so following your progression).
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: denzie on Aug 04, 05:57 PM 2017
Denzie, so basically what you mean is to bet numbers that have hit 2x with the progression 1-2-4-8-16-32 (If one of them hits and becomes a 3x, then bet 2 units on it, if it hits again and becomes a 4x then bet 4 units, and so following your progression).

Yes or start with 1 hit numbers. Iaw start after 1 spin. That's the basics . Resetting is the key. But again it's the basics. Now only need to know how to cut down numbers.  8)
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: romano0327 on Aug 04, 06:02 PM 2017
Denzie for how many cycles ? or just reset when a high balanced is reached?
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: nottophammer on Aug 04, 06:02 PM 2017
(https://www.rouletteforum.cc/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pichost.org%2Fimages%2F2017%2F08%2F04%2Ftemp_987864.png&hash=81da7f98e195e510870c90bc8c73a137) (http://www.pichost.org/image/B83p)
Now we just said consider betting all 15 non-hit that have come, well you'd win. Now you see the 16th has missed its avg to hit, its 2 spins, you'd have to decide if you'd bet. But its in, so non-hit are still hitting fast, 17th & 18th hit to their avg.
So we see 18th is fast, to stop this fast trot the repeats need to happen, the repeats come,the trot is level.

We can see hotties have gone R2 the #13 again, so now just bet all R2's.

What if spins 21-30 where our spins 1-10, be just like the starting 10 spins.
(https://www.rouletteforum.cc/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pichost.org%2Fimages%2F2017%2F08%2F04%2Ftemp_439829.png&hash=c36edd964c3154e40478b4e540fb9594) (http://www.pichost.org/image/BZ70)
So you can see thru countback the non-hit had to slow, so you'd go for repeats.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: romano0327 on Aug 04, 06:03 PM 2017
Somebody mentioned 3 cycles, cant remember what reply it was.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: nottophammer on Aug 04, 06:09 PM 2017
now before you get carried away on hotties work out how many units you'd have laid on the appearing R1's, be more than 36 units
(https://www.rouletteforum.cc/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pichost.org%2Fimages%2F2017%2F08%2F04%2Ftemp_195930.png&hash=6da339ef72bc295ec47963ea91890319) (http://www.pichost.org/image/BkyH)
Yes or start with 1 hit numbers. Iaw start after 1 spin. That's the basics . Resetting is the key. But again it's the basics. Now only need to know how to cut down numbers.  8) so is turbo/denzie going to tell romano
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: romano0327 on Aug 04, 06:18 PM 2017
Nottophammer correct me if I am wrong, your method of play will switch between non-hit and repeaters depending on the trot. I just got a little bit confused since the whole thread started with 2x repeaters, and your method also takes non-hit into consideration.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: nottophammer on Aug 04, 06:22 PM 2017
The 40 pins ended 21,-2.
Look when 19th came, whats avg for the 20th to hit in, 3 spins. 21st was in its avg. what will the 22nd do?

Now this is the bit, avg for 60 spins is 30.5 spins, so we'll say 30 non-hit, that means potentially theres 9 more non-hit to show in next 20 spins, well lets see.
(https://www.rouletteforum.cc/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pichost.org%2Fimages%2F2017%2F08%2F04%2Ftemp_690824.png&hash=43817a7243f793ba86585fa7d2cb2bd5) (http://www.pichost.org/image/BvWd)
(https://www.rouletteforum.cc/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pichost.org%2Fimages%2F2017%2F08%2F04%2Ftemp_281764.png&hash=5dce8d70ab819830a5f7be6380728b7e) (http://www.pichost.org/image/BKBU)
I have said in many posts i play for both using countback and avg
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Madi on Aug 04, 06:26 PM 2017
Winkle and turbo two different things. While winkle preferred to bet 0 hit but turbo saying no point bcz it might be a long term sleeper. But both have done excellent work in their own way.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: romano0327 on Aug 04, 06:36 PM 2017
Yes I see that, both are the greatest ideas I have seen so far after understanding the logic behind them, I its nice two have more than one card under the sleeve.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: nottophammer on Aug 04, 06:40 PM 2017
well we got the 30 non-hit in 60 spins.
(https://www.rouletteforum.cc/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pichost.org%2Fimages%2F2017%2F08%2F04%2Ftemp_441953.png&hash=ea71b46406aa93926114a0780cffdd4e) (http://www.pichost.org/image/BnZg)

If you can KEEP THE FAITH then theres oppotunities to take profit by just betting non-hit, Winkel said to me you have found away to bet,but thats another level, or words to that effect, in the GUT topic, but he said be carefull.
(https://www.rouletteforum.cc/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pichost.org%2Fimages%2F2017%2F08%2F04%2Ftemp_519923.png&hash=c7e9a5b3a4a6f1d9d0dd3a55e2f3ed89) (http://www.pichost.org/image/BzwV)
Was it cht said learn form mistakes, so you can see if you can read this so called invisible trot, then you bet either.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: nottophammer on Aug 04, 06:42 PM 2017
Yes Madi great respect for Winkel, if only he could have gone to the next level, but tossers denied him the chance, our loss.

Hope you  are well Winkel,
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: nottophammer on Aug 04, 06:50 PM 2017
Heres the other spins, 80 in total, oh yeah this is airball
(https://www.rouletteforum.cc/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pichost.org%2Fimages%2F2017%2F08%2F04%2Ftemp_622381.png&hash=2d90efbe25568b811e748e7a2f5157be) (http://www.pichost.org/image/I5dt)
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: nottophammer on Aug 04, 07:25 PM 2017
Hi nottop,

thats what I´ve always told: watch the crossings and watch what ist going on. If a crossing comes up and you don´t trust it, the next idea is to bet the other chance.

I never had a chance to explain this to this point, because of too many enemies. But as you found by yourself: This ist the chance to bet nearly every spin, if you can detect, what is going on.

BUT: You have to be aware: There is no automatism in it. You can be wrong, Your ability to make the right decisions might be missing. So learn to stop the game. Learn to jump to another sequence and so on.

br
winkel

So whats he saying bet the repeats not the non-hit, learn the LOL, invisible trot, chance to bet either way, by what the trot is telling you, better still countback.
Thank you WINKEL, you r the top man :thumbsup:
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Madi on Aug 04, 07:48 PM 2017
Thats the advanced stage what u r playing notto and winkle didnt reveal much about that. Like the trot moving as wave.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: romano0327 on Aug 04, 10:05 PM 2017
Denzie are you doing well with the progression  1 2 4 8 16 32 on the repeats, moving to the next bet every time one hits?
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: nottophammer on Aug 05, 02:40 AM 2017
Thats the advanced stage what u r playing notto and winkle didnt reveal much about that. Like the trot moving as wave.
Then i recommend everyone studies 37 spin cycles, so that they see this invisible wave that according to some is not there, Madi you know how trot flows, so betting either 0X or 1x is available.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: nottophammer on Aug 05, 03:51 AM 2017
Like this as its posted 9/1/2014, so no bullshit :thumbsup:
Here I have a test run to show you what I meant when I said looking at the same numbers in different ways:

36
9
32
29
5
24
17
12
28
23
30
11
35
7
35
15
18
26
14
26
16
12
25
0
35
34
11
4
32
19
9
11
22
3
24
13
36
5
14
23
15
9
8
3
1
3
21
0
8
31
7
11
23
21
7
0
10
22
1
3
29
2
34
30
1
1
12
26
14
27
22
13
19
17
24
13
30
3
31
28
29
27
2
33
26
24
23
35
4
19
20
18
31
5
5
11
28
18
23
4
28
34
16
5
29
4
12
7
9
33
6
2
32
1
26
28
29
11
24
24
23
27
23
8
35
23
25
30
30
27
11
32
17
12
15
31
17
5
10
26
32
34
9
9
12
27
34
0
23
27
18
19
12
34
3
18
35
16
32
18
14
12
19
23
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: cht on Aug 05, 03:52 AM 2017
Then i recommend everyone studies 37 spin cycles, so that they see this invisible wave that according to some is not there, Madi you know how trot flows, so betting either 0X or 1x is available.
I'll recommend to see this 'invisible wave' from the physical perspective of the wheel. Nicksmi posted a nice excel worksheet on the other thread, it's very helpful for checking things out. Thanks Nicksmi. And thanks notto for the pointers.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: nottophammer on Aug 05, 03:55 AM 2017
So heres the 1st 10 spins, countback is shown, what the invisible trot could show as.
If we are betting Hotties, we're getting in bit of a hole
(https://www.rouletteforum.cc/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pichost.org%2Fimages%2F2017%2F08%2F05%2Ftemp_591402.png&hash=7f3d3bc0c468d2602ee31620565c65f6) (http://www.pichost.org/image/IGgf)
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: nottophammer on Aug 05, 03:59 AM 2017
What is the larger group doing, what it should do hit fast, hotties getting deeper
(https://www.rouletteforum.cc/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pichost.org%2Fimages%2F2017%2F08%2F05%2Ftemp_262986.png&hash=34e5d3ad265cd0f4bb59c03cecc9cc5b) (http://www.pichost.org/image/I2T1)
The ? is when or what profit do you take betting the 37 starting non-hit
(https://www.rouletteforum.cc/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pichost.org%2Fimages%2F2017%2F08%2F05%2Ftemp_355908.png&hash=bc076541f7f44c4935319c181b5aec27) (http://www.pichost.org/image/ItA5)
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: nottophammer on Aug 05, 04:07 AM 2017
Now look where that 14th non-hit came, where it could have come spin 17/18, so fast, look at 13th spin, what is GUT reference. So repeat is now on the cards, the ? is when, so knowing the avg to hit for non-hit and their maximum spin to hit would be of big help, so watch the countback for position
(https://www.rouletteforum.cc/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pichost.org%2Fimages%2F2017%2F08%2F05%2Ftemp_144088.png&hash=c38c32731bec144f5cba6716d138823d) (http://www.pichost.org/image/IFzx)
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: nottophammer on Aug 05, 04:25 AM 2017
So fast game
(https://www.rouletteforum.cc/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pichost.org%2Fimages%2F2017%2F08%2F05%2Ftemp_743079.png&hash=de3f9f34ebf9165fec04f3bf8ee2af58) (http://www.pichost.org/image/IUWK)
The hottie is in #35 and theres another to bet the #26, how much are hotties down? as non-hit are fast.

With countback showing 18th is way in to fast, it could have come spins  25/26, wouldn't you now be thinking repeats must start to happen, WFT time?
(https://www.rouletteforum.cc/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pichost.org%2Fimages%2F2017%2F08%2F05%2Ftemp_362680.png&hash=c7fc32bb7bd6d211ac2aa1a1df2cb0eb) (http://www.pichost.org/image/IeBB)
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: nottophammer on Aug 05, 04:37 AM 2017
Sill fast, upto the 19th non-hit they avg to hit in 2 spins we see they behaved as they should.
So will the hotties be out of the hole off -69 units, have they not just bet another 18 units of what value, 2 or even 5 unit bets
(https://www.rouletteforum.cc/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pichost.org%2Fimages%2F2017%2F08%2F05%2Ftemp_553823.png&hash=24b120ef971cfd0c6eec2ee3c51deed2) (http://www.pichost.org/image/Ilk9)
With ref point 37 already hit, the repeats must come now, but will the #35 be hot, hot, all the R1's could come R2 before one goes R3
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: nottophammer on Aug 05, 04:38 AM 2017
think some more Green charts needed Mr Taotie
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: nottophammer on Aug 05, 04:39 AM 2017
(https://www.rouletteforum.cc/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pichost.org%2Fimages%2F2017%2F08%2F05%2Ftemp_265596.png&hash=3324f3c1a4dd1e32ed7bcac82afd610f) (http://www.pichost.org/image/I0wZ)
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: probasah on Aug 05, 04:40 AM 2017
Guys, and girls

I will try to help you out. Call me a good Samaritan.  Found this by accident, and after years of researches. It`s all about the Bet selection.

Money Management
Forget about magic progressions. They do not exist. Only Flat Bet works.
Forget Stop loses. Reset point and abort positions. They do not work.

Bet selection
Forget dozens, EC, corner, splits etc and all that crap. They do not work.
Bet numbers only. Follow repeaters.

You will know that you are on the right path when you will get +400 to +1600 at the end of a 25,000 spin session. Draw downs of (-400). Flat Bet.

All those that have found the solution can confirm what i said above. Lets cut all the crap and help each other out.

Hope this helps. 
Alex
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: nottophammer on Aug 05, 04:45 AM 2017
(https://www.rouletteforum.cc/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pichost.org%2Fimages%2F2017%2F08%2F05%2Ftemp_375657.png&hash=aecdae18f7b350a727cdd7053bc4bdd2) (http://www.pichost.org/image/I6dD)
(https://www.rouletteforum.cc/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pichost.org%2Fimages%2F2017%2F08%2F05%2Ftemp_132996.png&hash=d8ab4b6a028a95d702336a2ef38e28e4) (http://www.pichost.org/image/I9jl)
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: nottophammer on Aug 05, 04:53 AM 2017
 These spins from Azim in Holy Grail by Winkel
(https://www.rouletteforum.cc/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pichost.org%2Fimages%2F2017%2F08%2F05%2Ftemp_989138.png&hash=24725ba189cf11e7aa97e54f3ea854d5) (http://www.pichost.org/image/IWAa)
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: nottophammer on Aug 05, 04:56 AM 2017
If you can KTF  :smile:
(https://www.rouletteforum.cc/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pichost.org%2Fimages%2F2017%2F08%2F05%2Ftemp_277239.png&hash=958891aff9258dcaa56fdf8dcd734200) (http://www.pichost.org/image/IxJF)
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: nottophammer on Aug 05, 05:00 AM 2017
Here is 111 of the 163 he posted
(https://www.rouletteforum.cc/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pichost.org%2Fimages%2F2017%2F08%2F05%2Ftemp_507746.png&hash=9662aab712f81194a926e824ca30c6cb) (http://www.pichost.org/image/IMzi)
would you still be playing on this wheel after spin 13, i'd move to another or let some spins go by
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Madi on Aug 05, 05:01 AM 2017
@ probash

Can be done with repeater but will be slow. +400 for thousand of spin does it worth?
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: denzie on Aug 05, 05:31 AM 2017
Yes, pogo, you are right. I a wrong.

Attached 18 series of 5000 spins to confirm it.

Alex

What I see on those charts is pretty much what I get. Although I don't flatbet. If it rises keep going. If it goes down and (almost) recovers reset.   :thumbsup:

My positive progression makes minimum 10 times more profit though
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: probasah on Aug 05, 06:07 AM 2017
What I see on those charts is pretty much what I get. Although I don't flatbet. If it rises keep going. If it goes down and (almost) recovers reset.   :thumbsup:

My positive progression makes minimum 10 times more profit though
Denzie,

Those graphs were using a mild progression.
I since then found a way to flat bet.
Certainly it works either way but the risk is too big for me to use even the mildest progression.

I am not talking BS guys, seriously i want to help you. Thats why i reopened this discussion from February. Don't get side tracked by winkels method gut. Im not saying it doesnt work, just dont go side tracked.

Follow Turbogenius instructions and tou will see it.
Also,  flat bet. It is the best indicator to see if your bet selection really works. If flat bet fails, go back and rethik the bet selection.


Alex
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: probasah on Aug 05, 06:12 AM 2017
@ probash

Can be done with repeater but will be slow. +400 for thousand of spin does it worth?
Hey Madi

It most certainly is!
I have not simulated it with positive progressions on a larger scale(1,000,000 spins).
Its just a matter of perspective. I was interested in the flatbetting bet selection, not on profit.

Regards
Alex
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: probasah on Aug 05, 06:15 AM 2017
repeated post.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: romano0327 on Aug 05, 07:36 AM 2017
Probasah, I have found that with the progression it almost always end up in profit, how ever you need a a pretty big bank roll, how many units are you using per numer for flat bet? Since the start. Do you start with the 1x numbers, or 2x numbers?
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: probasah on Aug 05, 07:42 AM 2017
Probasah, I have found that with the progression it almost always end up in profit, how ever you need a a pretty big bank roll, how many units are you using per numer for flat bet? Since the start. Do you start with the 1x numbers, or 2x numbers?

1 unit only. All progressions fail if the bet selection is faulty. Its just mathematics. Test your bet selection with flat bets only. That is the only way.

Alex
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: probasah on Aug 05, 07:53 AM 2017
I know its difficult to get it as i have struggled with the same frustrations in the past. We are looking for "magical" money progressions using really crappy bet selections. It does not win like that.But once you get it, you get it!
Start with a bet that wins flat bet and then and only then think about progressions( to get more money/ invested spins)
Stop following threads with EC dozens splits and corners they do not work. Do not read Money management BS topics. All progressions fail if the bet selection is a failure.
The bet selection includes individual numbers.

Alex

Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: romano0327 on Aug 05, 07:55 AM 2017
Alex, I did try that many times yersterday but it kept on failing, every session I tried was for a cycle of 37 spins, betting 2x numbers to become 3x numbers, almost every session gets to a point where there is to many 2x numbers and one hit will not recover. Are you betting for 2x to become 3x ?
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: probasah on Aug 05, 08:04 AM 2017
Alex, I did try that many times yersterday but it kept on failing, every session I tried was for a cycle of 37 spins, betting 2x numbers to become 3x numbers, almost every session gets to a point where there is to many 2x numbers and one hit will not recover. Are you betting for 2x to become 3x ?

Your answer in in your question. I said it before. Try out your bet selection flat betting. If it wins, than that is your answer. If not, than that is also your answer.
Read careful what turbo said and done. Bet repeaters? Yes? Bet 1x's? NO! Bet non hits? DEFINITELY NO! What then? Test it out man, its on a silver plate!

Alex
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: romano0327 on Aug 05, 08:18 AM 2017
Thank you Alex, I have also tried 3x numbers to become 4x in a 37 cycle, however the statistics of getting a 4x number in a 37 cycle are only of 49%, that means that 51 cycles will fail, so I dont think that 49 wins could make up for the losses.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: romano0327 on Aug 05, 08:24 AM 2017
Alex I also found that if it works flat bet then it would only be possible for it to work in short cycles, te more spins the more new repeaters would have to be bet and a win would not make up for the amount of chips bet in the previous spins. Do you play flat bet for a 37 spin cycle and then reset?
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Madi on Aug 05, 08:37 AM 2017
@probash

In that case i think u cant play all the time. Need to play in specific position only.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: probasah on Aug 05, 08:49 AM 2017
Looking from your replies, its obvious you will get it eventually.  You are asking the right questions. Just follow the guidance from turbo and you will eventually reach there.
Please understand that i can not reveal more than i already have, as we are not alone in here. The only thing i can do is tell you what works and give you a direction.
I hope you all get the solution, you have all the data in here. Just remember when you do get the "Evrika!" moment, you owe me a beer and to turbogenius, eternal gratitude.😀😀😀

Alex

Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: probasah on Aug 05, 08:54 AM 2017
Alex I also found that if it works flat bet then it would only be possible for it to work in short cycles, te more spins the more new repeaters would have to be bet and a win would not make up for the amount of chips bet in the previous spins. Do you play flat bet for a 37 spin cycle and then reset?
No. Definately you need to use the 37 spin cycles to start with. You are not restricted afterwards by anything else. Do not put hurdles in front of you.

Alex
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: probasah on Aug 05, 08:55 AM 2017
@probash

In that case i think u cant play all the time. Need to play in specific position only.
Your assumption is very correct, Madi!

Alex
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: maestro on Aug 05, 09:01 AM 2017
Quote
Please understand that i can not reveal more than i already have, as we are not alone in here


why...do you think casinos will close just because numbers repeat...lol...wake up and smell the cofffffeee..


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_JgYXp9_UU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_JgYXp9_UU)
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: cht on Aug 05, 09:09 AM 2017
Guys, has anyone tried out Nickmsi spreadsheet? Take a look if you have not, extend it beyond 37.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: probasah on Aug 05, 09:18 AM 2017

why...do you think casinos will close just because numbers repeat...lol...wake up and smell the cofffffeee..


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_JgYXp9_UU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_JgYXp9_UU)

Most definately they won't, maestro! They will continue to prosper as its a proportion ratio.
There will be more people that play their birthday number ready to fill up the casino's bank accounts than there are winners. But to think about ut for a second, i am surely not the first one to get the solution, how come no one before turbogenius shared this in public?

How about the other lies like Progressions and side bets Bullshit we see in all forums?

Where there is a will there is a way. You have all info you need in this thread to arrive at resolution.

Alex
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: romano0327 on Aug 05, 09:20 AM 2017
Alex thank you very much for your help, I am very greatfull, I just quite did not follow your last reply well,  did you mean that once I start flatbetting for numbers to hit a 3x I should only do it for a 37 numbet cycle then if I lost reset( take the loss) and If I won reset as well, or should I move pass the 37 number cycle until in profit.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: romano0327 on Aug 05, 09:22 AM 2017
I send you a pm Alex, I am testing hardly on RX.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: probasah on Aug 05, 09:28 AM 2017
Alex thank you very much for your help, I am very greatfull, I just quite did not follow your last reply well,  did you mean that once I start flatbetting for numbers to hit a 3x I should only do it for a 37 numbet cycle then if I lost reset( take the loss) and If I won reset as well, or should I move pass the 37 number cycle until in profit.

There are no resets as you see it. The bets keep going on. You will always be in profit flat betting as your bet selection is correct. Stop making reset checkpoints (if/else) on the current bankroll.the money will rise naturally.

Alex
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: romano0327 on Aug 05, 09:45 AM 2017
I think I got it Alex, I sent you a pm, could you correct me if I am wrong.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: maestro on Aug 05, 09:50 AM 2017
Quote
You have all info you need in this thread to arrive at resolution


i need no info nor resolution..need whisky over 25 years and rock music :thumbsup:
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: denzie on Aug 05, 10:24 AM 2017

i need no info nor resolution..need whisky over 25 years and rock music :thumbsup:

And some hot chicks  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: denzie on Aug 05, 10:28 AM 2017

How about the other lies like Progressions and side bets Bullshit we see in all forums?


Alex

It's a path we all walk(ed) on  :)
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: ozon on Aug 05, 12:13 PM 2017
Hi Probasah
I have a question like what amount of spins you tested such an approach.
Edge is not big, playing a flat rate, we can not make a mistake because one hit can cost us a daily profit.
I'm curious how many thousands of spins you have simulated to achieve an average profit.
I used to play from 2 repetitions, after 3 hit and play only 3 repeaters and ended up  session with 8 time hit. It reduced the number of numbers played.
My tests were not long and maybe I did not see the edge.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: probasah on Aug 05, 01:44 PM 2017
Hi Probasah
I have a question like what amount of spins you tested such an approach.
Edge is not big, playing a flat rate, we can not make a mistake because one hit can cost us a daily profit.
I'm curious how many thousands of spins you have simulated to achieve an average profit.
I used to play from 2 repetitions, after 3 hit and play only 3 repeaters and ended up  session with 8 time hit. It reduced the number of numbers played.
My tests were not long and maybe I did not see the edge.

Hi ozone,
Tested for 40 sessions x 25,000 spins for a total of 1 million random.org samples ( 10 days x 100k to collect them ) :)
Flat betting. i did not see the point in going above that but i do not mind testing it for any number of spins any time.

Do not ask if the bet selection is good or not. Test your bet flat betting and you will get the answer for your self. If it does not win flat bet, it doesn`t win at all and all you have is just wishful thinking.

Do not lose hope.

Alex
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: probasah on Aug 05, 01:46 PM 2017
It's a path we all walk(ed) on  :)

It took me only 7 years to break those mirrors, denzie. Now here you have it, in plain sight.
Your description fits exactly my vision.

Happy winnings
Alex
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: ozon on Aug 05, 02:10 PM 2017
I do not give up hope.
I have very little time to test.
I live in Poland since the beginning of July my government has ban gambling online .
I can not use almost any online casinos.
To play I have to move to the UK.
In order to move and play, I would have to have an effective method of playing.
Even here on the forums posting about sharing a profit for something interesting.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: romano0327 on Aug 05, 02:15 PM 2017
I know its a very long path, with many fails and time lost testing many methods, but finally we see a light, Alex could you please check my last message, I sent to your inbox, thanks.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: probasah on Aug 05, 02:21 PM 2017
Here are some graphs guys,

As you can see the samples are 26,000 samples x 8.
It includes one that is up/down +/-400 but that one is very very rare :)
No Bullshit, those are real graphs using random.org samples.

All is flat bet.

Alex
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: DoctorSudoku on Aug 05, 02:30 PM 2017

I live in Poland since the beginning of July my government has ban gambling online .
I can not use almost any online casinos.
To play I have to move to the UK.



After Brexit, will the UK government allow you to move there ?

Just so that you can play roulette ?
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: probasah on Aug 05, 02:36 PM 2017
I know its a very long path, with many fails and time lost testing many methods, but finally we see a light, Alex could you please check my last message, I sent to your inbox, thanks.

Read your inbox:)

Alex
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: probasah on Aug 05, 02:42 PM 2017
Guys, this was my gift for you all.

Once you get your bet selection, please do not share it in any open forum. Here or elsewhere.

To all that still search it:


Never lose hope!
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: ozon on Aug 05, 02:50 PM 2017
DoktorSudoku

Brexit has not changed anything , my friends are still working there, and new they go to work there. Poland is a member of the EU, I have no problems with getting a right of residence.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: cht on Aug 05, 02:55 PM 2017
It's not too difficult to figure this one out. Boils down to 1. what type to bet, example 0x, 1x, 2x and so on, 2. what to bet - betselection means you don't bet all the possible numbers you have to be selective, and 3. timing - when to start betting.

It's right there, shown by the spins, I mean the current spins of whatever roulette wheel in front of you, look hard at it. That's it.

Today is my off-day, so I took time to figure out what this thread is all about.

Probasah has literally given everything you need to know. Nicksmi coded the spreadsheet with random data on F9 key for testing. You can load real live data. Wiggy has posted the distribution and celescliff has provided the statistical expectation. Just do the testing work to SEE the current random or live spin play out in front of your eyes. Stick with 3(min) - 6(max) - you should be able to figure that 3 stuff out, not rocket science. Good luck.

PS. Thanks probasah for bumping this thread.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: romano0327 on Aug 05, 03:09 PM 2017
Thanks to all people that were willing to help and showed no greed in helping others, turbo G, Alex,  Denzie, etc...We owe them gratitude, if any of you guys is ever up for a beer, count me in  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: probasah on Aug 05, 03:09 PM 2017
I know your search for a winning system will end today for many of you.
I only wish you well and please do good with the money that you will win helping others as we have done for you.

Regards,
Alex
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: cht on Aug 05, 03:12 PM 2017
Lastly,  winkel, vaddis grail and turbo is all one and the same thing. They look at the spins at different stages as it unveils itself. If you see it that way, then you're on the right track   

Which is better ?

It boils down to the payout vs risk. The model with the best payout vs lowest risk is obviously the best, that makes that creator the real genious. If you know who's that, then you've fully understood this thread.

No matter, thanks to all those great guys and others who posted nuggets that helped along the way. Thank you.

And lastly, remember always to stay under the radar, don't want to tip off the floor manager. Use pen and paper for tracking, blend in with the crowd, bet at the manual tables, limit your bet size, always put on a losers face. Good luck.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: falkor2k15 on Aug 05, 03:12 PM 2017
I tested it on dozens in 4 spins, and that failed*, so it's not going to work for numbers in 37 spins either. Therefore, a parallel stream must be required, hence the reason why rrbb suggested number positions in the "outside the box" topic. Either that or you are some rumored variance avoidance master, in which case you can you look for hidden waves in Red/Black - no need to bet on repeats for that.

*I am still testing another way that might work, which involves playing more "against" the repeats, and missing out certain spins in different situations, or deciding whether to play a follow up bet or not. There may be some edge here, but it's certainly not enough to beat the house edge when playing dozens.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: DoctorSudoku on Aug 05, 03:22 PM 2017

I know your search for a winning system will end today for many of you.


Regards,
Alex

Alex,
Yes, thank you for making that happen.

Steve can shut down this forum and vlsroulette. Victor can shut down betselection.cc. Kav can shut down roulette30.com.
Am I leaving out anyone else?

August 5, 2017 -- it will go down in human history as the day that all roulette forums became redundant.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: 777 on Aug 05, 03:47 PM 2017
CHT,
Well it has to be TG since he uses the lowest numbers and the highest progression.

but are all of you playing the same way? Cht, you say min 3 max 6, but some starts with one number. Alex you have tested a lot of cycles where do you start? with one number?the biggest question is still how to select the 3-6 numbers what do you do when you have 9 x2 numbers in the first cycle?

also does anyone know what the best progression is? +1 or 1-2-4-etc or 1-5-25

if anyone would care to share, it would be much appreciated.

PS I get profit with flatbeting but have only tested 50 cycles. would love to improve the big dd
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: probasah on Aug 05, 03:53 PM 2017
also does anyone know what the best progression is? +1 or 1-2-4-etc or 1-5-25
777, forget the progressions. Let them go. I know its difficult (we all have been there)
Use flat bet only.

Regards,
Alex
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: cht on Aug 05, 03:56 PM 2017
CHT,
Well it has to be TG since he uses the lowest numbers and the highest progression.

but are all of you playing the same way?

No. There's winkel, vaddis grail, tg, notto, denzie, probasah......your choice based on your risk appetite.

Cht, you say min 3 max 6, but some starts with one number. Alex you have tested a lot of cycles where do you start? with one number?the biggest question is still how to select the 3-6 numbers what do you do when you have 9 x2 numbers in the first cycle?

Betselection. Look at the roulette wheel.

also does anyone know what the best progression is? +1 or 1-2-4-etc or 1-5-25

As probasah stated many times, flat bet. If you don't see profit, go back to betselection.

if anyone would care to share, it would be much appreciated.

PS I get profit with flatbeting but have only tested 50 cycles. would love to improve the big dd

If you experience big dd, go back to betselection.

Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: 777 on Aug 05, 04:16 PM 2017
thanx for the replies Cht and Alex.

I have +485 units in 50 Cycles. Flat bet. this is by only betting first cycle. biggest dd -124 on one cycle.
em i too lucky or do i have the right selection?
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: probasah on Aug 05, 04:19 PM 2017
Good evening, all

It was my pleasure to help you out. It is kind of funny as it all started with something to get my mind occupied and some coding background. I tested 100+ methods in the past. All failures. I was thinking that its so funny to see so many failures, all complicated methods to reach the same result. Like David against Goliath.
I persevered. Sleepless nights coding, reading, testing.  And then it struck me. :) What if.... and it finally worked.
If i know one thing is this life is that i made a couple of people happy tonight. And gave them hope. That to me is priceless.
To all that are new to this approach..
Please do not buy any systems online or roulette computers as they are worthless.
They are only after your money.
All you need to know is in this thread. Save it offline for further use. as it can be deleted.

I want to know where all the AP gurus are hiding now? Where are all the system salers now. What are they doing now?
Never mind them.

Like Shakespeare used to say... The rest is silence.

With all my love and sincerity,
Alex
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: cht on Aug 05, 04:25 PM 2017
thanx for the replies Cht and Alex.

I have +485 units in 50 Cycles. Flat bet. this is by only betting first cycle. biggest dd -124 on one cycle.
em i too lucky or do i have the right selection?

You're on the right track. Improve your betselection, you'll get a lot luckier.

Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: romano0327 on Aug 05, 04:44 PM 2017
.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: romano0327 on Aug 05, 04:48 PM 2017
Alex, I sent you a Pm.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: cht on Aug 05, 04:50 PM 2017
Good evening, all

It was my pleasure to help you out. It is kind of funny as it all started with something to get my mind occupied and some coding background. I tested 100+ methods in the past. All failures. I was thinking that its so funny to see so many failures, all complicated methods to reach the same result. Like David against Goliath.
I persevered. Sleepless nights coding, reading, testing.  And then it struck me. :) What if.... and it finally worked.
If i know one thing is this life is that i made a couple of people happy tonight. And gave them hope. That to me is priceless.
To all that are new to this approach..
Please do not buy any systems online or roulette computers as they are worthless.
They are only after your money.
All you need to know is in this thread. Save it offline for further use. as it can be deleted.

I want to know where all the AP gurus are hiding now? Where are all the system salers now. What are they doing now?
Never mind them.

Like Shakespeare used to say... The rest is silence.

With all my love and sincerity,
Alex
The advantage lies with the coders. We're able to build models to accurately test them. And do that fast and repeatedly.

To some extent, I believe this has to do with the physical aspects of the wheel, there's some connection not some out and out system without any possible cause behind it aithough Idk what that is or how to explain it.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: probasah on Aug 05, 05:11 PM 2017
The advantage lies with the coders. We're able to build models to accurately test them. And do that fast and repeatedly.

To some extent, I believe this has to do with the physical aspects of the wheel, there's some connection not some out and out system without any possible cause behind it aithough Idk what that is or how to explain it.

cht, for the last 3 days i am a zombie. I am testing the method extensively to see to find faults. There is none. My 5 year old kid told me today, daddy you look like an old man . "old!" :)
Funny thing life is.. memories flow through..
Then it all comes back like a river ...
All those years i was looking in the wrong direction. Maybe a lot of system creators were not aware of the faults with progressions and side bets and useless patterns. Its not their fault, i dont have anything with them.
I do however have everything against all the scammers and system sellers and roulette computer experts that have played the card of deceit for so many years.
They exploited the others for money benefits. That is absolutely intolerable to me.
Where are they now? WHERE ARE YOU? All the gurus and experts, where are you now? Come here and defend yourself. You can`t because you were all liars! Shame with you all.
I look in the mirror now and i am so proud of what i have done.
Believe me or not i really did not start this to get rich. My income is more than enough through my day job. To support a family, etc.
I have done coding in the past for unknown people all over the world. all for free, as it was good enough for me to think someone is thinking good about me.
Today i give you all the good news: flat bet works, winning on the long run works. all info is right here in this thread.
I know already 4 people already that have seen it. im sure more of them are already smiling out there in the world.

Remember what you have is yours to keep. Remember to help others as you have been helped.

Wish you all the best,
Alex
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: romano0327 on Aug 05, 05:32 PM 2017
Alex, I exceed the pm, its 5 per hour, I havent been able to reply...
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: probasah on Aug 05, 05:38 PM 2017
Alex, I exceed the pm, its 5 per hour, I havent been able to reply...

Guys, for all that want to contact me my email is probasah@gmail.com. Im not there 24 hours ,its past midnight now.  The PM is full already :)

Alex
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: cht on Aug 05, 05:39 PM 2017
Yea, you've done a good job on this thread. If not for you, I'm not aware about it, I don't read threads btw, at most the 1st few post to get an idea.

Your promptings got interested me to spend some time today to look at it in detail, your summary of posts was a good thing that saved me time to readup the entire thread.

Anyway, all the info is here. I'm sure some others who gone through this thread gets it, just that they didn't post comments, know that they're thanking you.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: vladir on Aug 05, 05:49 PM 2017
Guys, has anyone tried out Nickmsi spreadsheet? Take a look if you have not, extend it beyond 37.

What spreedsheet exactly? I dint find any here by nickmsi, on this topic.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: cht on Aug 05, 06:04 PM 2017
What spreedsheet exactly? I dint find any here by nickmsi, on this topic.
Post#42 - Outside the box - "Let's try again"     
thread. Random numbers, hits, repeaters, expected value and variance for 37spins - it can be expanded.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: denzie on Aug 05, 06:39 PM 2017
I know someone's inbox gonna go kabooooom  :twisted:
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: denzie on Aug 05, 06:42 PM 2017
the biggest question is still how to select the 3-6 numbers

Now that's just easy ..... But You might wanna step outside that 37 spins   :P
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: valvo on Aug 05, 07:18 PM 2017
G'Day Pogo, can we chat via PM?
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Madi on Aug 06, 04:18 AM 2017
@ probash
Done a little exp. it might not be suitable for the field condition as the growth is too slow. For $100 sometime need to play more than 1000 spin. But for experiment ya it shows positive result. Ur graph also show the same thing.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: 777 on Aug 06, 04:51 AM 2017
Now that's just easy ..... But You might wanna step outside that 37 spins   :P

Hi Denzie :)

Long time no see :wink:
yes i know the profits boost in cycle 2-3 when the hottie keeps hitting but how to improve the bet selection. you dont want to be betting 10 numbers do you? So how to pick the right 5-6 ones?
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Aug 06, 05:56 AM 2017
Probasar (peculiar name), you said:

Quote
I do however have everything against all the scammers and system sellers and roulette computer experts that have played the card of deceit for so many years.
They exploited the others for money benefits. That is absolutely intolerable to me.
Where are they now? WHERE ARE YOU? All the gurus and experts, where are you now? Come here and defend yourself. You can`t because you were all liars! Shame with you all.

Quote
Please do not buy any systems online or roulette computers as they are worthless.
They are only after your money. I want to know where all the AP gurus are hiding now? Where are all the system salers now. What are they doing now?

1. Exactly what experience do you have with roulette advantage play?

2. Why do you think casinos call it "advantage play"?

You've advised people to use flat bets, and to increase the accuracy of predictions. So far so good. Then you said to do this with turbo's method. Some problems:

- Turbos bet selection relates to hot numbers and he uses strong progression
- Turbo says his method works thanks to random

It doesnt seem you even know what turbos claims are. He's saying he doesnt change the odds, and he wins because of unpredictability and different size bets each with the same odds and spins are connected but not connected. I mean, if you understand the contradictions... really.

You tell people to increase accuracy of predictions, but dont do it with the only viable and proven methods. I mean really?

Further points:

1. Roulette computers can get single number hit rates of 1 in 12 on modern wheels. Im not so sure thats "worthless". Random is 1 in 37.

2. Ive defended basic facts for many years. The basic facts of roulette AP are "really basic". Only uneducated people claim otherwise. And for people that need to see for themelves, I do public demos on any wheel, and offer free trials. Nothing beats testing for yourself.

3. Theres ample proof AP actually does work and considered a real threat. Only and uneducated person claims otherwise.

4. I have no interest to censor anything about yours, turbos or any claimed winning system provided it isnt being used to scam people. This thread isnt going anywhere.

5. Ill be very clear on this point: I dont give a crap about what you or anyones opinions are of my technology or AP. But I do give a crap about being called a liar or dishonest. And I do give a crap about utter bullshit, and correcting it.

Before opening your mouth accusing others of dishonesty, be sure you have an idea of what youre talking about. But i suspect your motives are not so pure.

You are encouraging people to contact you privately via email and pm. This is actually against the rules if you are selling anything. Why? Because thats what scammers do, to avoid public scrutiny from more experienced members.

If you have something to sell, do it openly so experienced people can help buyers make an informed decision.

Probasar, I suspect you are here trying to sell something in private. I suspect you of gearing up to scam people. Im not accusing you, I just suspect it because youre following similar patterns that lead to people asking to pay for for the "secret". And anyone discussing purchasing anything from you should be very careful.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Madi on Aug 06, 06:18 AM 2017
@steve

What is ur saying about his graph that uses flat bet and rising up with big number of spin? He is using one important part of turbos method with flat bet not the full turbos method.definitely inspired by tg method but not using progression. Many people saying progression doent work if flat bet doesnt work. He is showing this it work with flat as well.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Aug 06, 06:19 AM 2017
ps probasah, Im interested in the truth. I dont care if its not convenient, or complicated. I dont care if it makes me look like i previously had no idea.

I believe things because of facts and supporting information. I am not bound to my understanding. Understanding changes. Its nothing to do with pride or ego either, or profit. I just care about the truth.

We can all be wrong from time to time. I dont believe in fairies because I dont know of anything that proves they exist. Same reason for believing repeaters are nonsense.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: probasah on Aug 06, 06:20 AM 2017
Probasar (peculiar name), you said:

1. Exactly what experience do you have with roulette advantage play?

2. Why do you think casinos call it "advantage play"?

You've advised people to use flat bets, and to increase the accuracy of predictions. So far so good. Then you said to do this with turbo's method. Some problems:

- Turbos bet selection relates to hot numbers and he uses strong progression
- Turbo says his method works thanks to random

It doesnt seem you even know what turbos claims are. He's saying he doesnt change the odds, and he wins because of unpredictability and different size bets each with the same odds and spins are connected but not connected. I mean, if you understand the contradictions... really.

You tell people to increase accuracy of predictions, but dont do it with the only viable and proven methods. I mean really?

Further points:

1. Roulette computers can get single number hit rates of 1 in 12 on modern wheels. Im not so sure thats "worthless". Random is 1 in 37.

2. Ive defended basic facts for many years. The basic facts of roulette AP are "really basic". Only uneducated people claim otherwise. And for people that need to see for themelves, I do public demos on any wheel, and offer free trials. Nothing beats testing for yourself.

3. Theres ample proof AP actually does work and considered a real threat. Only and uneducated person claims otherwise.

4. I have no interest to censor anything about yours, turbos or any claimed winning system provided it isnt being used to scam people. This thread isnt going anywhere.

5. Ill be very clear on this point: I dont give a crap about what you or anyones opinions are of my technology or AP. But I do give a crap about being called a liar or dishonest. And I do give a crap about utter bullshit, and correcting it.

Before opening your mouth accusing others of dishonesty, be sure you have an idea of what youre talking about. But i suspect your motives are not so pure.

You are encouraging people to contact you privately via email and pm. This is actually against the rules if you are selling anything. Why? Because thats what scammers do, to avoid public scrutiny from more experienced members.

If you have something to sell, do it openly so experienced people can help buyers make an informed decision.

Probasar, I suspect you are here trying to sell something in private. I suspect you of gearing up to scam people. Im not accusing you, I just suspect it because youre following similar patterns that lead to people asking to pay for for the "secret". And anyone discussing purchasing anything from you should be very careful.

Hi Steve

Once and for all i am nor selling anything to anyone, man. All of the persons i talked with can testify this. I am against the fraud and the bullshit that has been propagated everywhere online. I hate casinos and scammers.
You have to do your homework and get the system. I will not tell you step by step the rules.They are simple. It works. 25 million spins and going. What do you want more?
I know its your website steve and you can do anything you like with it. You can even delete this thread, but probably you don't get it or you did and try to play dead.
God is my witness i am just helping out others.
I have several confirmation and thank you emails in my inbox.
I seriously dont give a rats arse if you believe me or not. You don't have to take my word for it.

Maybe its for the best if you delete this alltogether
Im sick and tired to have people throwing rocks at me for nothing.

For all those that found the solution, please keep it for yourselves. The army of ignorant zombies will not see it anyway.

Alex

Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Aug 06, 06:21 AM 2017
@steve

What is ur saying about his graph that uses flat bet and rising up with big number of spin? He is using one important part of turbos method with flat bet not the full turbos method.definitely inspired by tg method but not using progression. Many people saying progression doent work if flat bet doesnt work. He is showing this it work with flat as well.

If theres a bet selection method that changes the odds, good and use it. Turbo has specifically said his system works because spins are random, and his system doesnt change odds.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Aug 06, 06:22 AM 2017
probasar then if you are legit, do your thing. Again I only care about the truth.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: probasah on Aug 06, 06:30 AM 2017
ps probasah, Im interested in the truth. I dont care if its not convenient, or complicated. I dont care if it makes me look like i previously had no idea.

I believe things because of facts and supporting information. I am not bound to my understanding. Understanding changes. Its nothing to do with pride or ego either, or profit. I just care about the truth.

We can all be wrong from time to time. I dont believe in fairies because I dont know of anything that proves they exist. Same reason for believing repeaters are nonsense.
Steve
The truth is:
Flat betting works
The bet selection that wins roulette is using numbers
Repeating numbers

All the rest is bullshit in a form or another. Tons and tons of bullshit about EC,dozens,splits,lines, progressions, patterns and all. ALL BIG FAT LIES.

That is all. How many times do i need to repeat that?

Alex


Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: denzie on Aug 06, 06:33 AM 2017
I think probasah is legit. He's been around a while now. And he's good with computers which could result in finding a method that works. After all coding beats a lifetime testing with pen and paper.

Like someone said.....It's all the same....Repeaters,  non hits , ktf , gut....It uses the same stuff each on there own way.
Just like probasah ain't playing as TG at all. But he does got the idea for it. Just as there is more than one way to play a certain idea.

And Steve you might not believe it but there are people who successfully coded it. And if you run million of stats you do see that random has limits. Which of course play in our advantage. Ooooh I said advantage.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Aug 06, 06:34 AM 2017
Quote
Im sick and tired to have people throwing rocks at me for nothing.

Expect that when you say you can do something others cant. Healthy skeptiscm is fine and justified. Throwing mud is petty and pathetic.

Quote
I know its your website steve and you can do anything you like with it. You can even delete this thread, but probably you don't get it or you did and try to play dead.

There is no censorship here. Except for spam and some exceptional cases. We do even less moderation than forums that claim to be uncensored. Just because im admin is no reason to hold back what you think. I understand being an admin doesnt put me above anyone. All mods and i do is try protect balance to allow free speech but without blatant crap/scamming

Anyway lets get this thread back on track. If you are sincerely helping people, please continue.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: falkor2k15 on Aug 06, 06:45 AM 2017
Betting on repeats doesn't work. They simply stabalise stats. You need a parallel stream to gain edge. See this quote from reddwarf:
I found it a really tough journey to free myself from the black hole of "waiting for an event to happen" for example: you can try to bet on repeats, but this is nothing more than a guessing game (hence a loosing proposition); not that repeats can not be used...
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: probasah on Aug 06, 07:08 AM 2017
Betting on repeats doesn't work. They simply stabalise stats. You need a parallel stream to gain edge. See this quote from reddwarf:
Falkor, you have not seen it. I have. So did a lot if other people.
The good news is that REPEATERS DO work.

Look furthermore, the key is in this thread. I already said too much.
There's a difference between knowing for a fact
and copy pasting the same info,  playing the same disc with... This doesnt work... You are wrong... Einstein was right... Etc

I am giving you the direction. With all my sincerity.


Alex
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: falkor2k15 on Aug 06, 07:14 AM 2017
As I know there are 3 ways to bet on repeats notwithstanding unsubstantiated variance avoidance claims:

1) Parallel streams:
Number: X,X,X,X,X
Position: Y,Y,Y,Y,Y,Y

You need values from both streams (X,Y) in order to be able to improve accuracy of predictions. And the predictions must be based around a repeats (or other non-random) framework.

2) Bet on-behalf of the number repeats, say, using Corners, and therefore with a cheaper investment (positions, i.e. selecting only those singles from the last 18 also helps):
(https://s2.postimg.org/4ss7j28dl/image.png)

3) Control the variance over several successive cycles - complicated but better than trying to avoid variance without any process in place.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: probasah on Aug 06, 07:23 AM 2017
As I know there are 3 ways to bet on repeats notwithstanding unsubstantiated variance avoidance claims:

1) Parallel streams:
Number: X,X,X,X,X
Position: Y,Y,Y,Y,Y,Y

You need values from both streams (X,Y) in order to be able to improve accuracy of predictions. And the predictions must be based around a repeats (or other non-random) framework.

2) Bet on-behalf of the number repeats, say, using Corners, and therefore with a cheaper investment (positions, i.e. selecting only those singles from the last 18 also helps):
(https://s2.postimg.org/4ss7j28dl/image.png)

3) Control the variance over several successive cycles - complicated but better than trying to avoid variance without any process in place.
As I know there are 3 ways to bet on repeats notwithstanding unsubstantiated variance avoidance claims:

1) Parallel streams:
Number: X,X,X,X,X
Position: Y,Y,Y,Y,Y,Y

You need values from both streams (X,Y) in order to be able to improve accuracy of predictions. And the predictions must be based around a repeats (or other non-random) framework.

2) Bet on-behalf of the number repeats, say, using Corners, and therefore with a cheaper investment (positions, i.e. selecting only those singles from the last 18 also helps):
(https://s2.postimg.org/4ss7j28dl/image.png)

3) Control the variance over several successive cycles - complicated but better than trying to avoid variance without any process in place.
Falkor,

That is not the way! Dont bet corners and other BS, just repeaters. You dont control variance you flow with it... You flat bet it
There is no progression no complicated patterns, jesus!
Stop reinventing the wheel!

Alex
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Taotie on Aug 06, 07:27 AM 2017
@ turbo,

Congratulations. lol 
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: falkor2k15 on Aug 06, 07:44 AM 2017
Quote
You dont control variance you flow with it... You flat bet it
There's 2 ways of flowing with variance - positive or negative - but if that worked then everyone would already be winning with Martingale methods. Allow me to explain:
Red vs. Black = 50/50.

If there was no variance then R/B would behave like this:
RBRBRBRBRBRBRBRB

Let's say there was a slight variance, then it might be like this:
RRBBRRBBRRBBRRBB

Or like this:
RRRBBBRRRBBBRRRBBB

In the 3rd scenario, we have a negative and positive way to bet progressively:
Negative/Martingale: bet on R and if lose then double up till win. Since the variance is only small, we would always win without reaching table limits.

Positive/Surf the wave: Wait for a virtual win on Red, bet Red to win again then double up once only.

Both methods are really nothing more than a positive/negative Martingale system that always loses since real variance isn't so tame:

This sequence kills the above negative progression on B:
BBRBRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRBRBBR 

This sequence kills the above positive progression:
RBRBRBRBRBRBRBRBRBR

This problem applies to all bet selections, including hot/cold numbers.

However, the "funny sequences" topic showed there is a way to control variance over successive cycles that may or not help tame variance and provide a winning method:
https://www.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=18814.0

The above creates a butterfly effect, so if converting sequences into combinations like Cycle Lengths and Orders, the variance of those becomes dependent on the variance of High and Low.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: probasah on Aug 06, 07:48 AM 2017
136286 Posts in 10397 Topics by 2799 Members.
How funny is it it took 136 thousand posts in this forum to get to resolution!!!

Steve for the sake of all you can delete this thread as it is clearly the end of roulette as we know it.
We can then go back to our useless discussions about patterns an magic systems...

Alex
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: falkor2k15 on Aug 06, 08:03 AM 2017
Like someone said.....It's all the same....Repeaters,  non hits , ktf , gut....It uses the same stuff each on there own way.
Just like probasah ain't playing as TG at all. But he does got the idea for it. Just as there is more than one way to play a certain idea
If this really worked then Notto wouldn't be telling us to take the first profit - even if only +1!
(https://image.ibb.co/cQvThF/proxy.png)
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Taotie on Aug 06, 08:21 AM 2017
Falkor,

Often as difficult as it is to understand your ideas and postings, I appreciate your long standing conviction.

probasah on the other hand, you need to take a step back and stop being so childishly fanatical about something you just discovered 3 days ago.

It really is absurd behaviour.



Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: boyd30 on Aug 06, 08:36 AM 2017
Steve, Probasah ain't selling something. I wrote to him and he replied.I still don't understand all about repeaters but I believe it's one of the best ways to bet.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: probasah on Aug 06, 08:53 AM 2017
Falkor,

Often as difficult as it is to understand your ideas and postings, I appreciate your long standing conviction.

probasah on the other hand, you need to take a step back and stop being so childishly fanatical about something you just discovered 3 days ago.

It really is absurd behaviour.
You are right, Taotie.
I am a bit fanatical about it. Imagine how would you behave if you would find life on another planet/ a infinite renewable energy source / the cure for ageing / things like that. How would you behave?
It really amazes me how people take the superficial part of things.
I could have kept my mouth shut and just enjoy the average talks, see people fail over and over again, being scammed by system sellers, etc.. you get the picture.
I am not the first nor will i be the first  to see the truth from the lies.
I hope you all succeed in your searches. I really do.

What started as a play 7 years ago finished for me 4days ago. The impossible became possible.
You may not see it as much, for me it was just another intelectual battle won.
I will probably not even use this thing for me in the future as it is not a challenge for mevanymore.
The more i try to get the others see the light for themselves, the more i feel that is a battle i will never win.
I just hope that those few that will make it, will see  the truth behind the lies.

I will not get rich with this guys, it was never about that for me. Please stop accusing me of trying to mislead people to take advantage.
To make it easier for you all, just forget that i ever was here.
Life continues with or without the roulette HG.
And will continue with and without probasah.
That being said, thank you all for your messages, the thank you's that i get in my inbox value more for ME than donald trump's millions.
I have been a zombie the last days fighting against impossible odds. I won. That is all that matters.
Even if i made 1 person life better, IT WAS ALL WORTH IT.

Steve, please remove my account as i see people do not appreciate my postings.

I wish you all  the best in life,
Alex
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: TurboGenius on Aug 06, 09:29 AM 2017
Pops my head in for a moment.

What an interesting thread.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: maestro on Aug 06, 09:57 AM 2017
@probasah...can you please post a graph of say 10000 random stream to see how it looks..<i am not asking how you bet or anything else >only graph..thanks
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Bayes on Aug 06, 10:25 AM 2017
Pops my head in for a moment.

What an interesting thread.

That's not what I thought. I haven't read it all but it looks like yet another "Guess My Grail" thread. Same old same old.  ::)

Do you realise how many different roulette systems are possible? It's like saying "I've hidden a chest of gold coins somewhere in the world, all you have to do is find it and it's yours".  ;D

Even if you narrow down the possible systems to hot numbers and repeaters it won't make a lot of difference. Ok, here's a clue: it's somewhere in Africa.  ;D

It's absurd on another level too. Given that an awful lot of hot number/repeater systems have been tested over the years, isn't it odd that not even one has achieved HG status? Are we supposed to believe that a minor mod of a failed system (e.g. wait for 3 repeats in 30 spins instead of 40) makes all the difference between a system which flat out fails and one which wins continuously? It's like saying this car will reach 100 mph if it's red but not if it's blue. If the basic principle of hot numbers/ repeaters is sound then many variations should work, but none of them do.  ::)
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: cht on Aug 06, 10:43 AM 2017
Just finished my regular session at my local casino.

I have a question for all you guys on here - who actually goes to your local b&m casino bet at the manual tables at least 2/3 times a week every week of the year for at least the last 3 years ? Anyone who collect enough comps to pay for rooms/food ? Indicate below.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: denzie on Aug 06, 11:04 AM 2017
That's not what I thought. I haven't read it all but it looks like yet another "Guess My Grail" thread. Same old same old.  ::)

Do you realise how many different roulette systems are possible? It's like saying "I've hidden a chest of gold coins somewhere in the world, all you have to do is find it and it's yours".  ;D

Even if you narrow down the possible systems to hot numbers and repeaters it won't make a lot of difference. Ok, here's a clue: it's somewhere in Africa.  ;D

It's absurd on another level too. Given that an awful lot of hot number/repeater systems have been tested over the years, isn't it odd that not even one has achieved HG status? Are we supposed to believe that a minor mod of a failed system (e.g. wait for 3 repeats in 30 spins instead of 40) makes all the difference between a system which flat out fails and one which wins continuously? It's like saying this car will reach 100 mph if it's red but not if it's blue. If the basic principle of hot numbers/ repeaters is sound then many variations should work, but none of them do.  ::)

And here we have it once again. ..... Because You can't figure it out no one can. Please if it's all you have to say, don't say nothing at all. Seriously shut up.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: denzie on Aug 06, 11:06 AM 2017
Just finished my regular session at my local casino.

I have a question for all you guys on here - who actually goes to your local b&m casino bet at the manual tables at least 2/3 times a week every week of the year for at least the last 3 years ? Anyone who collect enough comps to pay for rooms/food ? Indicate below.

Nope,  I'm a online player. It's just more easy. Never had problems with connection or pay outs etc....

But on my trip in cambodia yup...buy in for 5-800$ and every night a room and food and drinks and cigarettes and.....yes girls
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: cht on Aug 06, 11:26 AM 2017
Nope,  I'm a online player. It's just more easy. Never had problems with connection or pay outs etc....

But on my trip in cambodia yup...buy in for 5-800$ and every night a room and food and drinks and cigarettes and.....yes girls
Yea the girls make all the difference.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Bayes on Aug 06, 11:28 AM 2017
And here we have it once again. ..... Because You can't figure it out no one can.

That's not what I said. If you're going to reply then reply to what I actually wrote, not your interpretation of it. 
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Aug 06, 07:44 PM 2017
Again it's a very well tested fact that past numbers (including hot numbers) dont at all change the odds (exception is bias). So if you have 13,13,13 consecutively, the odds of 13 spinning next are still 1 in 37. The odds dont change for the next spin, or anytime soon. SO WHY WOULD YOU PICK HOT NUMBERS OVER COLD NUMBERS? WHY WOULD EITHER CHOICE BE BETTER THAN RANDOM BETTING?

Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Azim on Aug 06, 08:04 PM 2017
Hello All,

It's your money your time.

I had run a simulation of this sometime back. The number's don't add up.

If some one want's to give out exact rules: I will code this again for everyone to see it for themselves.

Please, no twisting of the rules. Once confirmed by everyone the app or tracker will be published.


Anyone up for it?
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Aug 06, 08:15 PM 2017
I already published free software so anyone can see for themselves. It didnt change anything probably because people dont care to test properly, for whatever reason.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Azim on Aug 06, 08:24 PM 2017
Steve,

I agree with you. However, I am going to play dumb and say. They think you have something about system play because of the business you are in.
To people it looks like you have a hidden agenda.

I can publish the rules in probably 20 simple steps.

However, like to see the people who have claimed to prove it with graphs. Come up with it so no mis-understanding.

If this won flat betting. Do you really think people would play a marti progression of 1 2 4 8 16 when a number hit's lets do the math right here.

It's simple. The marti progression is the first killer never mind the flat bet selecting the hot number's.

I am sure there is something wrong in the programming or the number's have been fixed to reflect that.

This reminds me of someone by the name of ALBALHA or whatever it was.  Could beat a million spins however still looking for a system  from people.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: falkor2k15 on Aug 06, 08:37 PM 2017
(https://www.rouletteforum.cc/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pichost.org%2Fimages%2F2017%2F08%2F04%2Ftemp_931497.png&hash=75e4941c946963b619ae65c068cffb3d) (http://www.pichost.org/image/BDu9)

(https://www.rouletteforum.cc/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pichost.org%2Fimages%2F2017%2F08%2F04%2Ftemp_374561.png&hash=a6df1c99daaf687b41b731a6f6bc7a0f) (http://www.pichost.org/image/BN8Z)(https://www.rouletteforum.cc/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pichost.org%2Fimages%2F2017%2F08%2F04%2Ftemp_919615.png&hash=5830e7e861d045b4351b3b2e155ce0a2) (http://www.pichost.org/image/BulD)
Anyone tried parachuting:
1s: bet the 1s till there are 2s...
2s: stop betting 1s and bet 2s
3s: stop betting 2s and bet 3s
...

Since there are less numbers involved at the higher levels, perhaps the parachute progression could end up in profit with a few tweaks, but I seriously doubt it.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Aug 06, 09:11 PM 2017
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: cht on Aug 06, 09:26 PM 2017
I assume Alex has left this forum.

The rules are simple, very simple in less than 20 lines. There're 3 aspects to get right - post#398. Nobody is going to give the rules to you, do your homework for yourself. There's more than enough relevant info on this thread contributed by a number of posters not too difficult to find them.

If you're someone who knows payouts as well as a dealer does plus sees each and every number on the carpet in your head(not eyes) then you should be able to SEE it at a glance what this idea is all about.

There's nothing to prove. No one can prove it to you, nobody can convince you that's a silly, childish thought. You prove it to yourself, no one is going to do that for you.

It's an idea. There're many ways to skin the cat, it's obvious if you SEE it. Post #401. The main difference is the risk exposure in each model.

And if you don't SEE it, then move on. It's BS to YOU.

Keep the conversation focus on the idea, stay away from personalities including about yourself it's not relevant never will be btw who cares.

Btw I play bacs full-time my way at the local b&m casino. Still.

My last post on this thread. Out.

PS. I don't reply to PMs on this matter.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Azim on Aug 06, 09:37 PM 2017
There is nothing rocket science about the rules.

I don't want them for myself. I will not do it as how I see it.
People see things differently when looking at the same thing from different elevation.

That's why I said, let someone post the rules if they claim it's a winner. All I was willing to do was share it with everyone to see for themselves. They could load as many spins as they wanted.
No personal agenda for me.

Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: MumboJumbo on Aug 07, 04:31 AM 2017
There is no rules, only clues about nothing.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: vladir on Aug 07, 06:22 AM 2017
So I read part of this thread. I may have missed something, but at some point turbo seems to speak about a progression. Probasah claims its all flat betting. Are they talking about the same thing at all?
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Aug 07, 06:29 AM 2017
So I read part of this thread. I may have missed something, but at some point turbo seems to speak about a progression. Probasah claims its all flat betting. Are they talking about the same thing at all?

You could spend a week pulling apart inconsistencies, bad logic, misunderstandings and loads of other junk.... and in the end you'll conclude there's nothing valuable in Turbo's approach. It's just the same crap repackaged.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Bayes on Aug 07, 07:05 AM 2017
There is no rules, only clues about nothing.

Agreed. And supposing someone thinks they've figured out what the system is from the "clues", what then? The teaser won't confirm it anyway.

I don't get it. If you want to post your ideas then just do it. If you think you've found a winning system but don't want to share, then don't post anything, just keep it to yourself. What's the point of posting hints and clues if you have no intention of sharing? the hints are not "sharing" anything. You just come across as an attention seeking knobhead. If you feel you need more attention, try getting a f*ckin dog.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: denzie on Aug 07, 07:17 AM 2017
It's just the same crap repackaged.

Kinda like what you and Bayes post every few pages. We get it. We totally get your point. Now take a step back let others talk . Thx  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Aug 07, 07:26 AM 2017
Kinda like what you and Bayes post every few pages

The difference is accuracy.

We get it. We totally get your point.

Actually you don't get the point.

When I see bullshit, I explain why it's bullshit. The exception is if it's in the system players only section, where reason is a touchy subject. But I guarantee I wont tell anyone they're wrong there.

And actually I mostly ignore inaccurate information. I usually say my part and leave it alone. When I do respond, I don't drone on with vague jargon. I give specific details including how anyone can verify the facts for themselves. You may not appreciate it, but others may.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Bayes on Aug 07, 07:35 AM 2017
We get it.

I don't think so. And who is "we" anyway? Speak for yourself.

It's really odd how certain members get a reputation for being gurus when they have actually demonstrated nothing at all. Turbo, priyanka, winkel, etc. Their only talent seems to be self-promotion and making grandiose claims, but not a shred of evidence has ever been given. On the basis of hot air and meaningless clues they have been elevated to legends! sycophants hang on their every word and suck up to them hoping to get some pearls of wisdom!

Wake up and smell the BS guys.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: cht on Aug 07, 07:53 AM 2017
The exception is if it's in the system players only section, where reason is a touchy subject. But I guarantee I wont tell anyone they're wrong there.
I just learned this. I believe many posters were not aware of this.

Steve, should this topic be transfered to system players only section ?
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Aug 07, 08:02 AM 2017
No because i started this thread to give turbos preachings an honest assessment. It was actually his open invitation to anyone. I even gave the flat earth crap a lot of my time only to conclude its complete crap. And i explained why i believe that. Likewise i explained why i dont find turbos approaches to be anything but nonsense. I often see ignorant people unwilling to consider another side, and im not going to be the same. Ill at least look in detail to understand the other sides view. But when its bullshit ill say it, and why. My opinions on things like these arent just opinions. They are just what the facts make clear.

If anyone wants to start a thread in that section, they can. But there is a real danger of preventing more sane and accurate information from interrupting ignorance and inexperience. Still, thats what can be done in that section.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Bayes on Aug 07, 08:03 AM 2017
You wouldn't bet a single thing on the 13 numbers that never appeared (why on earth would you ?)
You "could" bet on the numbers that showed up only once - but you would lose on those numbers
exactly at the house edge - so a bit silly of an idea. But that's up to you.
You Certainly would bet on the numbers that showed up twice - those 5 numbers would be a nice profit maker.
You Most Certainly would bet on the numbers that showed up three times ! - very nice profit from those.
And you would be a fool not to bet on the numbers that showed up four times !

So what kind of money would you put on them ?
Well, common sense would tell you that they all make profit regardless - but my time machine isn't going to be around in the future so you're going to have to make some choices.
You'll bet a minimal amount on the numbers that had 1 show
You'd bet more on the 2 show numbers
You'd bet even more on the 3 show numbers and
You'd bet a LOT on the 4 show numbers... This is a aggressive progression
and you're not worried because with the time machine you can't lose.

So all of this makes sense - and the naysayers can say "well we don't have a time machine".
And guess what - you don't need one.
I made this clear in other posts - those numbers that appeared 4 times were numbers that had appeared 3 times.
Those numbers that appeared 3 times were only numbers that appeared 2 times
and the numbers that appeared 2 times were only numbers that appeared once.
All of the numbers that never appeared ? They never appeared.......
Use the same logic on the next 38 spins that you don't know.... correct ? It's not rocket science.
You can say "There's no way of knowing the next spin..." and that is correct.
You can say "There's no way of knowing that a number with 1 show is going to be a number that has 2 or more shows" - and that is correct. BUT - the only numbers that will have 2 shows are numbers that appeared once. See ?
Steve rightly said that systems are useless.. "If accuracy of bet selection doesn't increase, no progression can consistently win."
Now your accuracy just increased (and greatly).
As a matter of fact - by NOT betting on numbers that never show you are no longer playing/winning/losing at the house edge.
You can test this - it's not hard to do. I did it at the other forum as an example.
Play every number on the table for 38 spins - you'll end at the house edge.
Play every number on the table but only once it shows - you won't end at the house edge.
Play every number on the table but only after it shows twice - again - you won't win/lose at the house edge.
You can continue this on for quite a while.
The "house edge" on a 38 pocket wheel is 2 numbers.
If you play every number on the table for 38 spins, you will be down 2 units - this is the house edge.
However - if you play every number Except for the last 2 numbers that end up appearing (this could be 150 spins or more ? it varies) You never play at the house edge at all.
For those who want to test things - there's where to begin.
The aggressive progression not only covers the numbers that appear "at average" if you choose to play them - it boosts your profits beyond flat betting and does not involve chasing a loss or digging out of a hole - it's not a negative progression, it's a positive one based on wins.

Thanks for reading, I can only hope this sinks in - and if not then you're on your own.

The problem with this, and the whole premise that repeaters and hot numbers are better than betting randomly or on "cold" numbers, is that there is no reason why numbers which have hit once, twice, or X times will hit again while you're betting on them. Turbo doesn't seem to understand why it's not silly to bet on the numbers which haven't appeared, he says "why on earth would you?".

umm... because those numbers have the same chance of hitting as any others?

The faulty logic is that numbers which have hit will be more likely to hit again. That would be true if the outcomes were not random, but they are random. If you collect some spins and sort them hottest to coldest there is no tendency for those at the top of the list to hit more often than any further down the list. Numbers at the top can turn cold and numbers at the bottom can become hot, and there's no consistent pattern to it. This shouldn't be any big surprise given that outcomes are independent.

I wrote a program some years ago which tested many values of X, Y, and Z for the system: "bet on the numbers which have hit X times in the last Y spins, for z spins. X, Y and Z can take many values ranging from 1 to whatever you like. X can take the value zero too, meaning that there have been no hits in the last Y spins. Each value of X, Y, and Z represents a different system. It took a couple of days to get the results because there were thousands of systems, but in the end no system performed better than any other. Again, just what you would expect from the maths.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: cht on Aug 07, 08:08 AM 2017
No because i started this thread to give turbos preachings an honest assessment. It was actually his open invitation to anyone. I even gave the flat earth crap a lot of my time only to conclude its complete crap. And i explained why i believe that. Likewise i explained why i dont find turbos approaches to be anything but nonsense. I often see ignorant people unwilling to consider another side, and im not going to be the same. Ill at least look in detail to understand the other sides view. But when its bullshit ill say it, and why. My opinions on things like these arent just opinions. They are just what the facts make clear.

If anyone wants to start a thread in that section, they can. But there is a real danger of preventing more sane and accurate information from interrupting ignorance and inexperience. Still, thats what can be done in that section.
Ok, this thread is about turbo and his ideas - the title. My bad I didn't read, I thought this was some exploratory discussion.

I don't think your bs call is wrong. In the absence of concrete evidence, it's bs turbo or whatever no compromise on this. Frankly, even if evidence from someone else is handed to me, it's still not good enough for me. It's up to each one of us to do our own due diligence.

Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Aug 07, 08:12 AM 2017
cht its more complicated than that be ause turbo made contradictory statements, and statements that make clear accuracy is not changed, but it us changed, but not changed, and so on. I followed what turbo has said and its nothing personal but he was wrong. And the whole thing with parksonline was misleading.

Anyway its ok to be wrong. Im just trying to help people avoid wasting time. Ive explained all the details in earlier posts
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: MoneyT101 on Aug 07, 08:19 AM 2017
I haven't really looked into this repeater  method much.

But I understand that logic a bit.

Why would you play cold numbers? 

1. Quality(hot numbers) vs quantity(cold numbers)

2.random stats already says all 37 will not really show up in a cycle of 37 spins.  Meaning numbers will repeat!

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not sure which method they achieved but I'm sure there is a way to take advantage. 

Billions of spins will not help until you know exactly what your testing!!!!!! 

So Steve and bayes, YOU ARE RIGHT!  There is no method that you guys have tested that can win.  BUT YOU GUYS DONT HAVE THE RIGHT METHOD TO TEST AND BECAUSE OF THIS, YOU WILL NOT HAVE THE CORRECT RESULTS!
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: cht on Aug 07, 08:22 AM 2017
I haven't really looked into this repeater  method much.

But I understand that logic a bit.

Why would you play cold numbers? 

1. Quality(hot numbers) vs quantity(cold numbers)

2.random stats already says all 37 will not really show up in a cycle of 37 spins.  Meaning numbers will repeat!

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not sure which method they achieved but I'm sure there is a way to take advantage. 

Billions of spins will not help until you know exactly what your testing!!!!!! 

So Steve and bayes, YOU ARE RIGHT!  There is no method that you guys have tested that can win.  BUT YOU GUYS DONT HAVE THE RIGHT METHOD TO TEST AND BECAUSE OF THIS, YOU WILL NOT HAVE THE CORRECT RESULTS!

The bolded part, you got that one right. Now will probasah and the 4 guys he mentioned lay it on this thread for all to see ? No. Both parties are right except they speak not of the same thing.

On my part, from the small sample I tested the data suggests a bias. Remember - a very, very small sample. I don't have the time to test further nor will I.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Aug 07, 08:38 AM 2017
Enough of what turbo has said is black and white, not grey. If those black and white comments are to be taken seriously, Turbo has said enough, with condtradictions, to show his approach doesnt work and he doesnt even understand why. Its nothing personal at all.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Bayes on Aug 07, 08:41 AM 2017
Why would you play cold numbers? 

1. Quality(hot numbers) vs quantity(cold numbers)

2.random stats already says all 37 will not really show up in a cycle of 37 spins.  Meaning numbers will repeat!

Sure, numbers will repeat. But which ones? There is no way to predict on the random wheel.

Quote
BUT YOU GUYS DONT HAVE THE RIGHT METHOD TO TEST AND BECAUSE OF THIS, YOU WILL NOT HAVE THE CORRECT RESULTS!

If all the logic and evidence points to hot numbers not being a superior bet, what makes you think there is a "right" method which hasn't been discovered yet?

In this case it's reasonable to say that "absence of evidence is  evidence of absence"
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: cht on Aug 07, 08:57 AM 2017
As I know there are 3 ways to bet on repeats notwithstanding unsubstantiated variance avoidance claims:

1) Parallel streams:
Number: X,X,X,X,X
Position: Y,Y,Y,Y,Y,Y

You need values from both streams (X,Y) in order to be able to improve accuracy of predictions. And the predictions must be based around a repeats (or other non-random) framework.
Is this possible ? Has anyone tested this ?

Falkor, what's your findings ?
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: falkor2k15 on Aug 07, 09:44 AM 2017
Is this possible ?
It's about the only thing that does work... I tested number repeats till blue in the face over millions of spins, looking for a simple method that doesn't involve parallel streams... all different simulations/tests carried out (including in microcosm using dozens in 4 spins)... Hot numbers have same chance as cold numbers. No way to break unfair payout odds problem. You could bet a more likely event such as 15 numbers compared to 5 numbers, but all is compensated by the payout odds (or risk/reward factor - 15 numbers repeat quicker but pay less). However, the moment you look at the numbers stream with additional info coming from the positions stream then you can see an extra dimension to what is happening!

Alternatively, you could simply bet on-behalf of the numbers (foundation vs. roof). Let's say we expect a number repeat on spin 7:
Example 1: 1,10,14,18,22,31
Example 2: 1,3,7,14,17,18

Example 1 would require 6 units if betting individual numbers, but you could probably reduce it to 4-5 units by transposing to corners or double streets.
Example 2 only requires 1 unit because all numbers are in the low EC bracket!

Example 3: 1,3,7,9,11,13,15,17,19,21,23,25,27,29

Here we just bet on Odd = 1 unit! And even if you don't want to study the positions stream in any detail, you could take out the oldest numbers from that list since the repeat will mostly occur on recent numbers:
1,3,7,9,11,13,15,
vs.
17,19,21,23,25,27,29
The 2nd bunch is a better choice - providing they appeared in that order!

It's also evident from how Priyanka plays that if a number has repeated several times, i.e. 3x or 4x, there are further exclusions that can be made - but only when considering this problem from a transposition context - preferably aided by the position values, too.
(https://s2.postimg.org/4402e9d2h/video4.png)

The Corners that were selected based on the individual numbers:
(https://s2.postimg.org/aexv9gzwp/tally2.png)

And when the Corners were selected they were chosen with respect to recent numbers (positions) and which numbers had already repeated during the previous Double Streets transposition:
(https://s2.postimg.org/605zp2xqx/recentnumbers.png)

If you are using Double Streets instead of numbers then you could use bring in Streets as a parallel game. However, since numbers doesn't officially have anything better, it's co-dependents are limited to positions or a self-defined stream such as numbers stitched to ECs over the course of 2 spins per trial, but this is unnecessary... Numbers + Positions is all that's really require to achieve 45 degree graphs - believe it or not. But without it, is like trying to solve an inequality with only 1 expression instead of the 2 or more needed expressions - all based on number patterns over multiple spins - and never with regards to predicting the next spin (cannot be done; hence the repetitive betting style seen in Priyanka's video).
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: cht on Aug 07, 10:13 AM 2017
I tested along the same lines. In fact I read your much earlier post that pointed me in this path. My findings are exactly the same as yours playing around with various other 'streams'. If the 'timing' is ripe, ie. the number of numbers vs payout is favorable, the result looks good. Hypothetically, we should only place bets when this condition is met. It does fail but the success outweighs the failure in my very small sample tested. This line of thought deserves further expanded testing imho. You/others might want to take it from here.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: MoneyT101 on Aug 07, 10:48 AM 2017
I tested along the same lines. In fact I read your much earlier post that pointed me in this path. My findings are exactly the same as yours playing around with various other 'streams'. If the 'timing' is ripe, ie. the number of numbers vs payout is favorable, the result looks good. Hypothetically, we should only place bets when this condition is met. It does fail but the success outweighs the failure in my very small sample tested. This line of thought deserves further expanded testing imho. You/others might want to take it from here.

This is what Pri was trying to teach.  But a much more advanced method
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: jule67 on Aug 07, 02:58 PM 2017
normaly from 37 a 52  will go 2 at 4 numbers  fron 2 reapeters at 3 repeat.maybe can do something with this  :lol:
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: winkel on Aug 07, 04:18 PM 2017
I don't think so. And who is "we" anyway? Speak for yourself.

It's really odd how certain members get a reputation for being gurus when they have actually demonstrated nothing at all. Turbo, priyanka, winkel, etc. Their only talent seems to be self-promotion and making grandiose claims, but not a shred of evidence has ever been given. On the basis of hot air and meaningless clues they have been elevated to legends! sycophants hang on their every word and suck up to them hoping to get some pearls of wisdom!

Wake up and smell the BS guys.

Bayes,

I never ever called myself a Guru nor did I behave that way.
Everyone is allowed of being pround of the things he achieved.
I don´t know why you have to mention me this way.

I´m absolutely right having stopped any posting in forums like this. there are only angry old man, shitting AP-Players, Balloneys of all kind and no sense at all.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Drazen on Aug 07, 04:23 PM 2017
Bayes,

I´m absolutely right having stopped any posting in forums like this. there are only angry old man, shitting AP-Players, Balloneys of all kind and no sense at all.

From what I see on his website, a forum of his in preparation too, so I am sure at least it will be deprived of such things.  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: RouletteGhost on Aug 07, 04:43 PM 2017
I barely post anymore either


I created strategies and silly ways to play because I like the game

It's an uphill battle on forums

Not worth it.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Turner on Aug 07, 06:05 PM 2017
You just come across as an attention seeking knobhead
lol.....you hit the nail on the head my friend

Seems there are 4 types (just my opinion, so if the hairs start to rise on the back of your neck, take an antihistamine)

A: people who genuinely have studied the game and realize the unfair payout will always be in the casinos favour, no matter what flavour you place those chips (which doesnt change the odds or improve the accuracy of your bet selection) unless you cheat with computers or advantage play (I mean the Casinos interpretation of cheating)

B: People who know all that but have gained some ego boosting kudos in grabbing an audience while their ego fights to oppose what they already know is true (i.e. what A: says)

C: Newbies who are acolytes of B: because they just started out with high hopes and dont want to believe A: because their pilgrimage will have ended before it began

D: Falkor  :o 


Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: cht on Aug 07, 06:32 PM 2017
With comments directed at personal level this forum will go dead, stays dead.

I read a lot of useless personality fights on most forums.

If YOU need to sound smart, put others down, need to win arguments on forums, quite clear you're not making money at the casino. I've no time to waste on such triviality.

Winkel, RG put such posters on ignore, there's no need to respond.

Steve, you might want to tighten moderation on personal level post and comments.

Is there a forum where there's open discussion focused on money making ideas ?
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Turner on Aug 07, 06:42 PM 2017
With comments directed at personal level this forum will go dead, stays dead.

I read a lot of useless personality fights on most forums.

If YOU need to sound smart, put others down, need to win arguments on forums, quite clear you're not making money at the casino. I've no time to waste on such triviality.

Winkel, RG put such posters on ignore, there's no need to respond.

Steve, you might want to tighten moderation on personal level post and comments.

Is there a forum where there's open discussion focused on money making ideas ?

A precis:
Can all the A's shut the f*** up and let the C's get on with feeding the B's egos

Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: TurboGenius on Aug 07, 07:19 PM 2017
It's really odd how certain members get a reputation for being gurus when they have actually demonstrated nothing at all. Turbo, priyanka, winkel, etc. Their only talent seems to be self-promotion and making grandiose claims, but not a shred of evidence has ever been given.

I wasn't going to bother but... since you didn't see it when posted I assume.
-----


    ======================================================================
    April 30th / bankroll: $445,417.00 / from roulette: $335,300.00 / roulette balance: $335,300.00
    May 7th / bankroll: $710,867.00 / from roulette: $249,200.00 / roulette balance: $584,500.00
    May 9th / bankroll: $960,267.00 / from roulette: $240,400.00 / roulette balance: $824,900.00
    May 14th / bankroll: $1,242,767.00 / from roulette: $516,400.00 / roulette balance: $1,341,300.00
    May 21st / bankroll: $1,749,967.00 / from roulette: $479,700.00 / roulette balance: $1,821,000.00
    May 28th / bankroll: $2,359,822.00 / from roulette: $457,520.00 / roulette balance: $2,278,520.00
    June 9th / bankroll: $3,660,342.00 / from roulette: $1,119,300.00 / roulette balance: $3,397,820.00
    June 17th / bankroll: $4,000,094.00 / from roulette: $507,300.00 / roulette balance: $3,905,120.00
    June 18th / bankroll: $4,179,791.00 / from roulette: $761,500.00 / roulette balance: $4,159,320.00
    June 25th / bankroll: $5,050,207.00 / from roulette: $1,425,810.00 / roulette balance: $5,585,130.00
    July 2nd / bankroll: $7,116,855.00 / from roulette: $1,861,100.00 / roulette balance: $7,446,230.00
    ======================================================================
exactly 24,005 spins where bets were placed.

And I know, this proves nothing - not enough spins, fixed game, toy wheel, etc. We covered all that on the other forum - even to the point where I proved each and every one of these things were false, yet it doesn't matter.
So to the people that have figured it out - good for them. To people who refuse to believe it's possible - good for them. I could care less.
And please don't group me in with other people - there's only me.
I have clearly demonstrated how roulette "is" beaten. I've posted how it's done. I've posted why it works.
I've posted RX, actuals, online casinos with live wheels and others with RNG - I've wasted entirely too much time trying to convince people what I'm saying is fact. It's clearly not worth my time to continue to do so.
It's all BS ?  That's fine with me, opinions are everywhere - everyone has one. You can ignore everything I said and call it nonsense - it matters not to me. What's done is done.
I had to do a lot of reading to catch up in this thread and it really makes me wonder sometimes.
---
"Turbo doesn't seem to understand why it's not silly to bet on the numbers which haven't appeared, he says "why on earth would you?".
umm... because those numbers have the same chance of hitting as any others?"

I hope for your sake you re-read this over and over.
They absolutely don't have the same chance of hitting as any other number.
You do know that (for example) the last 5 numbers could go 100-200 spins or more (or less) without appearing.
So if you are 38 spins in (for example) and have 16 un-hit numbers left.... you DO realise that 5 of those (for example) are going to not appear for potentially a long time. It's not the same math anymore.
Would you bet on a number knowing full well that's it's very likely a long term sleeper ? No, you wouldn't.
The opposite ? Playing repeaters. Would you play numbers that have shown knowing that there WILL be repeaters ?
If not - or if you still don't understand this.. there's no point.
There's actually no point in posting this - you won't stop to think logically, nor Steve, nor the nay-sayers who are stuck on "each spin is independent" and the game is "one spin" followed by "one spin".
There's nothing I nor anyone else can do or say to change this obviously, you'll either get it or not.
I made it perfectly clear that "my" way doesn't require me to be perfect. I don't need to hit and win on every hot number - just 1,2,3 maybe of the top 15 etc... and this is so easy a baby can do it.
You can go back to calling it BS and say I'm not being specific enough (still) for you. Or "it's all fixed" or "all BS" or whatever you want to avoid what's slapping you in the face repeatedly.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: falkor2k15 on Aug 07, 07:32 PM 2017
Quote
So if you are 38 spins in (for example) and have 16 un-hit numbers left.... you DO realise that 5 of those (for example) are going to not appear for potentially a long time. It's not the same math anymore.
Does that mean you are relying on variance from previous cycles to win the current cycle? Or can you win each cycle without knowledge of the previous?
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Aug 08, 12:58 AM 2017
I don´t know why you have to mention me this way.

There are actually many members who haven't provided a system any better than other systems. Some people have a following of people, some dont. Anyone who has a following needs to be very careful to not mislead people. And everyone needs to be responsible for understanding and testing facts.

It's an uphill battle on forums

Disagreements are a natural part of life. The problem in this case is some people mislead others. But the misled people need to be responsible for themselves too. When more experienced members try to help, they can sometimes be too forceful. But there's a time also for being blunt.

Steve, you might want to tighten moderation on personal level post and comments.

I haven't seen anything needing moderation. But we all need to keep it civil and productive.

Is there a forum where there's open discussion focused on money making ideas ?

Any forum. Just listen to the people that have experience who also give supporting evidence you can verify. And ignore people who make claims that oppose logic and don't have supporting information.

======================================================================
    April 30th / bankroll: $445,417.00 / from roulette: $335,300.00 / roulette balance: $335,300.00
    May 7th / bankroll: $710,867.00 / from roulette: $249,200.00 / roulette balance: $584,500.00
    May 9th / bankroll: $960,267.00 / from roulette: $240,400.00 / roulette balance: $824,900.00
    May 14th / bankroll: $1,242,767.00 / from roulette: $516,400.00 / roulette balance: $1,341,300.00
    May 21st / bankroll: $1,749,967.00 / from roulette: $479,700.00 / roulette balance: $1,821,000.00
    May 28th / bankroll: $2,359,822.00 / from roulette: $457,520.00 / roulette balance: $2,278,520.00
    June 9th / bankroll: $3,660,342.00 / from roulette: $1,119,300.00 / roulette balance: $3,397,820.00
    June 17th / bankroll: $4,000,094.00 / from roulette: $507,300.00 / roulette balance: $3,905,120.00
    June 18th / bankroll: $4,179,791.00 / from roulette: $761,500.00 / roulette balance: $4,159,320.00
    June 25th / bankroll: $5,050,207.00 / from roulette: $1,425,810.00 / roulette balance: $5,585,130.00
    July 2nd / bankroll: $7,116,855.00 / from roulette: $1,861,100.00 / roulette balance: $7,446,230.00
    ======================================================================
exactly 24,005 spins where bets were placed.

Turbo, I previously explained the math of parxonline in detail. It is wrong and misleading to cite these results when the player has the edge at parx. But I'll simplify.... when the casino gives you extra free money to play with every day, you are going to keep profiting provided you don't play too much. You need to play at the right level, and you'll be guaranteed profit. The parxonline results are very misleading. Anyone can achieve these results with random bets.

And I know, this proves nothing - not enough spins, fixed game, toy wheel, etc. We covered all that on the other forum - even to the point where I proved each and every one of these things were false, yet it doesn't matter.

No you didn't prove anything of the sort. No casino pays you every day just for turning up. That's where the player edge starts.
If you played 37 spins per day, and started with $1,000 and were paid $1,000 just for logging in, your edge for the day is about +30%.

Now imagine logging in day after day to maximize your bonus, and manage to win one of the top prizes just once. From that point, you have a massive injection of free funds in your account. From that point, as long as you keep playing, you'll continue to have a much higher edge than anyone and your profit is virtually guaranteed to keep increasing.

Again you dont appear to understand the math. But to simplify it further, you say its realistic. Which real casino gives you free money every day just for visiting?

And please don't group me in with other people - there's only me.

Even Fossel was high in the leaderboard. Again anyone would be if they played enough. Just most people dont have spare time to play with fun credits.

I've posted RX, actuals, online casinos with live wheels and others with RNG - I've wasted entirely too much time trying to convince people what I'm saying is fact. It's clearly not worth my time to continue to do so.

All I've seen you post from RX is a series of short term tests. How many similar results are on forums? Are they all HGs?

It's all BS ?  That's fine with me, opinions are everywhere - everyone has one. You can ignore everything I said and call it nonsense - it matters not to me. What's done is done.
I had to do a lot of reading to catch up in this thread and it really makes me wonder sometimes.

You dont seem to understand the math. You are misleading people, although I think it's mostly because you dont understand the math. Why spend all that time on parx if you want to prove yourself? Why not the MPR or a real online casino? Why would you choose a casino that pays you credits for logging in?

There's actually no point in posting this - you won't stop to think logically, nor Steve, nor the nay-sayers who are stuck on "each spin is independent" and the game is "one spin" followed by "one spin".

Its not me who isnt thinking logically. The math is actually quite clear.

And you have contradicted yourself many times. You say you dont change the odds, so why choose repeaters? Then you said you do change the odds. So which is it? You use progression on hot numbers, but anyone who has tested properly knows a hot number is just as likely to spin next, or anytime soon, as any other number. This has been tested exhaustively. By your approach, after 2 hits on a number, you'd bet on that number with a progression. Why? It wouldnt change anything.

Again it's nothing personal. It has nothing to do with how I play. I only respond in detail for the sake of accuracy and helping people.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Taotie on Aug 08, 02:35 AM 2017
...the misled people need to be responsible for themselves too...

If we could all truly let the insightful nature of this quoted comment really sink in and take hold, then we would all get along just fine.  :thumbsup:


"
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Aug 08, 02:44 AM 2017
Vegas..

Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Turner on Aug 08, 02:44 AM 2017
The parxonline results are very misleading. Anyone can achieve these results with random bets.
I must admit, I dont get what the point of all these Parxonline results is.

Its like me saying I killed 100s of solders in Afghanistan then you find out I am talking about playing Call of Duty

Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Bayes on Aug 08, 05:05 AM 2017
So to the people that have figured it out - good for them.

And why do people have to "figure it out"? To Winkel, Turbo, priyanka, denzie and any other "baiters", I'd like to remind you of the forum rules, specifically rule 9, which says:

9. No "baiting", which is where you brag about how great your system is, but you don't share anything except perhaps obscure details that lead people along. The forum is a place for open sharing. If you "bait" people, expect to be banned.


As far as I'm aware, this rule has rarely if ever been enforced. Why not? it's a good rule IMO. I don't have an issue with anyone bragging about how great their system is, as long as they post clear instructions on how to play it. If the system seems absurd, so what? As long as instructions are given, and the system creator responds to requests for clarification etc then there's no problem. No one need indulge in personal attacks when everything is transparent and open. Members can try the sytem for themselves. If it doesn't work for them, they can tell the original poster, suggest improvements, and so on. Actually, this is what goes on most of the time here anyway.

It's only when grand claims are made but only hints are given that the trouble starts. Members are quite rightly pissed off when this happens, because it gives the baiter power over the "baitee". Openness,  transparency, and the egalitarian principles of a public forum are compromised, and there is always the suspicion that the baiter has ulterior motives (such as "sales by pm").

I'm not "attacking" any of the above-mentioned posters. As Steve rightly says, those who are misled need to take responsibility too. And in any forum, as any sphere of life, there are strong, persuasive, and charismatic personalities - people who like to have power! Nothing wrong with that in general, but I don't think it's appropriate in a public discussion forum. Take away the opportunity for power (the "baiting") and it becomes a non-issue, although there will still be disagreements.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Aug 08, 05:42 AM 2017
The baiting rule is only enforced in extreme cases, where nothing of actual substance is given.. like a principle that can be tested.

 For example in falkors case, he gave information like roof structure which was beyond vague. But he eventually provided actual examples of his theories. The problem was they were flat incorrect. Falkor is usually moderated to at least remind him not be to so incredibly vague.

Turbo provided enough detail, and kudos for sharing. But the problem again major parts of his claims were incorrect.

Baiting that results in banning would need to be severe like it was with ceh, where nothing testable was provided over a long period of time. Just waffle and endless clues. In such a case it was sickening to watch and something needed to be done.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Aug 08, 05:56 AM 2017
On the note of ceh, i knew i would cop heat for banning him because he had such a large following. Of course people accused me of censoring the hg which was complete bullshit.

It just reached epic levels of bullshit. Its not my job to tell people what to think. But it's also my and the mods responsibility to use best judgement to know when to finally step in. When its so damn obvious, action is justified.

It's alsi easy for us all to forget we are all real people here. I actually don't enjoy having the power as admin from the point that some people think that i think im better than them. In all i think we have good balanced moderation here. Again turner said it best: pub rules.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Bayes on Aug 08, 06:04 AM 2017
Steve, it's a bit of a grey area I suppose when it comes to moderation. When does baiting become "extreme"? You mention a "principle that can be tested". Well Turbo has definitely given us that. The principle is that hot numbers/ repeaters are a better bet than cold numbers. Even though he hasn't made a logical case for that being true (although he thinks he has), the problem is that the "principle" doesn't work in practice. I made this point in a recent post when I said that if the principle is true then there ought be many systems which work as long as they follow the "principle". But many systems have been tried using Turbo's principle and none of them work, so we're left with the conclusion that if Turbo is right, it must come down to the very specific system and rules he's using, which he won't post. So in effect, he is baiting after all.

I'm not necessarily saying that anyone who does this is a troll and on a deliberate power trip, but it doesn't really matter what their intentions are because the net result on the forum is the same.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Aug 08, 06:10 AM 2017
The reason i mentioned ceh and remembering everyone is a real person is i came to know him  reasonably well but didn't know he was actually ceh too. I didn't know until later. And the guy seemed normal and sincere. I was later shocked that he was ceh.

When i asked him wtf was he thinking when stringing people along. He said he just liked to make people think. So from his perspective he was helping people. His motivation and intent was good. But he was deliberately misleading people, which was very wrong. Point is he isn't a bad guy, just caught in a very bad way of thinking.

Sure there are bad people with bad intent too. And they wouldn't last long here or on any reputable forum. examples are some of the dicks that went to gf to complain about wov then now to another bad forum like spreading cancer. Just negative people, uncaring of shit they create and how they affect each other.  At least it seems everyone here is essentially good-willed and not an outright c*nt to others while being proud of it.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Aug 08, 06:22 AM 2017
id say turbo is a long way from baiting. baiting for ego is a very different frame of mind.

i think i know turbo well enough to say he has good intentions.

its also good that he put his balls on the line. but in this case it seems he made a mistake. if or when he sees this, the right thing would be to say this so people dont chase their tails.

ive made mistakes too, we all have. and i even made public apologies. its a bit embarassing, but shit happens. at least it shows you arent afraid to admit mistakes. most people tend to hold on as if it makes them look incompetent. i think most people would respect the honesty.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Turner on Aug 08, 06:28 AM 2017
Heavy Moderation doesnt work and no moderation doesnt work even more

I think we have a good balance here. its because there is Moderation and people choose their words correctly to avoid it.

Pub rules, as I said to Steve some time ago.

Pubs have dickheads and bullshitters and people bragging, but it goes unchallenged....or a quiet word from the landlord

Pubs have good folk too, but if a fight breaks out, they are barred.

You cant have it run like Admin does in GF and you cant have it run like Esoito did in betselection. It doesnt work.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: falkor2k15 on Aug 08, 06:54 AM 2017
Quote from: TurboGenius
What or how would you bet on a roulette table if you DIDN'T want to win.
If your goal was to avoid a bet that you placed winning - where and why would you bet there ?
I think this might help some people along the way,
Don't get confused with "bet red and black and zero" (that's a whole different topic).
Lets say for the sake of example - you have to place a chip and you want to make sure that it doesn't win.....
https://www.GF/threads/a-question-to-make-you-think.7203/

"Lets say we wait until there is only 1 street left to show and then bet on it for 1 spin - knowing it could be 40+ spins before that last street shows. It's a great way to lose that bet."
--TurboGenius, 03-Jul-2017


Turbo's claims about cold numbers will, indirectly, either support or weaken his hypothesis about hot numbers. Results of this COLDEST STREET TEST to be posted soon - using real casino data over 1 million spins - excluding zeroes.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: TurboGenius on Aug 08, 07:04 AM 2017
No you didn't prove anything of the sort. No casino pays you every day just for turning up. That's where the player edge starts.
If you played 37 spins per day, and started with $1,000 and were paid $1,000 just for logging in, your edge for the day is about +30%.

Now imagine logging in day after day to maximize your bonus, and manage to win one of the top prizes just once. From that point, you have a massive injection of free funds in your account. From that point, as long as you keep playing, you'll continue to have a much higher edge than anyone and your profit is virtually guaranteed to keep increasing.

Again you dont appear to understand the math. But to simplify it further, you say its realistic. Which real casino gives you free money every day just for visiting?Even Fossel was high in the leaderboard. Again anyone would be if they played enough. Just most people dont have spare time to play with fun credits.

I don't know why I have to keep saying the same thing.
Any bonus points for logging in - even points purchased for that matter - DO NOT count as a profit of any kind.
Your bankroll balance doesn't put you on the leaderboard - only profits do.
If I log in and they gave me a MILLION bonus points, I wouldn't place on the leaderboard at all.
All of my leaderboard positions have been from profit only while playing.
So yes - it's realistic.
I've explained this over and over, it doesn't sink in.
As you can see from my posted results - I didn't need or use any bonus or log in points after the first week, it was just a "starting bankroll" the same as what I would have brought to a casino myself. and logging in every day and getting bonus points.... none of them go towards the leaderboard results. (now I'm repeating myself again).
This is available info on the site - or give it a try yourself. You can get bonus points all day and never be on the leaderboard... this is fact.
Now again to the claim that it's fixed ?  I dis-proved this by (saying first that I was going to do it) and then betting to lose. Sure enough, my bankroll is $2.00 now. "It's all rigged to win" wasn't an issue anymore - if I were being set up to win, had 7 million in profits..... there's no way a cheating game would let me lost that all.

Fossell ? Yes and others have ranked high on the leaderboard - because they know what they are doing.
Instead of credit for that, it's easier for you to say 'see, anyone can do it if you just play long enough'.
This isn't the case. If you aren't using something of value, you'll lose.
If you don't make a profit regardless of how big your bankroll is, you won't be on the leaderboard. It resets weekly. The only way I could rank so high week after week for that entire period of time is because what I'm saying is true.
While people might say I'm ego driven (lol). On the same note, I can say that many people won't give an ounce of credit where credit is due - because then they can't keep complaining. You would rather tell someone that they "think they know everything" instead of accepting the possibility that they know more than you think they do - where is the ego problem then ? Not with me.

On the other topic, I had to laugh. In the "Old days" you could certainly hop on a tour bus (I think it was Tuesdays and Thursdays) at the local diner here and they would take you to AC - they gave you a voucher - once inside the casino the voucher was turned in and they gave you $20.00 cash. You didn't have to gamble.
In your logic - "A person could ride the bus twice per week for a month and be on the leaderboard with $160.00 !"
But like I said, that 160.00 wouldn't count towards profits at the site, so no. They would have a typical starting bankroll - where it came from is irrelevant. I posted results - profit from playing. No bonus amounts included.
And "playing long enough" isn't relevant. So you're saying if they gave me $20.00 every day - if I played small amounts and took the bus every week for months - eventually I could win the leaderboard !!  That's absurd.
Just think of it this way - whatever they give you in points is a bankroll for that visit.
Or better yet - with $100.00 minimum bet - how long do you think that little sign in bonus can last ? Laughs.
Maybe 10 minutes if you spin the wheel slow.
The site wasn't fixed for everyone to win and was proven. The results were random and realistic and was proven. Anyone could do the same to see for themselves.
But I understand it's a whole lot easier to say it's luck or fixed - or that I don't know math (laughs) - it doesn't matter.
I made claims, I explained it - I showed results... not accepting it or understanding it isn't my problem.
and I'm out. (is it baiting if I leave again for a few months ? lol. I hope not, what choice do I have other than copy/pasting my own explanations over and over again).
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: TurboGenius on Aug 08, 07:07 AM 2017
"Lets say we wait until there is only 1 street left to show and then bet on it for 1 spin - knowing it could be 40+ spins before that last street shows. It's a great way to lose that bet."
--TurboGenius, 03-Jul-2017

I was openly asking people what they would bet if their only goal was to lose - I wasn't posting that street example as a way of playing. Just to be clear.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: falkor2k15 on Aug 08, 07:11 AM 2017
I was openly asking people what they would bet if their only goal was to lose - I wasn't posting that street example as a way of playing. Just to be clear.
Your original statement is clear - you are claiming negative edge re: first bet on the coldest street.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Aug 08, 07:14 AM 2017
Quote
Any bonus points for logging in - even points purchased for that matter - DO NOT count as a profit of any kind.

I know that. But your winnings with free money do count. Thats my point.
You still arent understanding the math.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: wiggy on Aug 08, 07:16 AM 2017
Distribution for streets!

Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Bayes on Aug 08, 07:16 AM 2017
FWIW I don't think Turbo is on an ego-trip either, but I do think he's misleading himself, and therefore others too. He showed us his results from parx, which seem impressive. Over 24,000 bets is quite a lot, but without knowing the drawdowns, the progression used, and how many numbers are bet it's hard reach a firm conclusion; you certainly can't claim it's a "long-term" winner just on that basis.  Without the details you have to fall back on the logic, which just doesn't hold up.

In his defense though, there is some mathematical justification for picking hot numbers. Maximum Likelihood Estimation (https://www.quora.com/How-do-you-explain-maximum-likelihood-estimation-intuitively) is a widely used statistical technique for "guessing" the probability of an event based on the data (past results). The MLE gives you the "best guess" and always turns out to be the event which occurs more often than other events, because it produces the maximum probability. So according to the MLE criteria, it makes no sense to bet on cold numbers because if you calculate their probabiliities they will always be the lowest, based on the data you actually have. The problem is that for random outcomes (without taking into account other factors), the past results are an unreliable indicator of future results. If the outcomes are not random then you're ok, so in the case of a biased wheel, even if you don't know where the bias is if you're betting those numbers which give the maximum probability you will end up betting on the "right" numbers if the wheel actually is biased.

There's another slightly more mathematical example of MLE here: http://statgen.iop.kcl.ac.uk/bgim/mle/sslike_3.html
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: cht on Aug 08, 07:26 AM 2017
The wheel could be bias just that we don't know it's bias. The data suggests a bias distribution, good enough for betting the hot numbers so long as the pattern is clearly recognised.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: falkor2k15 on Aug 08, 07:55 AM 2017
COLDEST STREET TEST

Turbo claims there is negative edge for the first bet on the coldest street:

"Lets say we wait until there is only 1 street left to show and then bet on it for 1 spin - knowing it could be 40+ spins before that last street shows. It's a great way to lose that bet."
--TurboGenius, 03-Jul-2017

Number of real casino spins: 1,000,000 (excl. zero)
Starting BR: 1,000
Finishing BR: -294

Download full results... (http://www.rarekungfumovies.com/roulette/TGColdestStreet-fullresults.zip) (open in Firefox - not Chrome or IE or Safari)

For those interested in carrying out a trend analysis: soon I will post a single page breakdown showing all placed bets. And I will repeat this for a 2nd dataset @ 1,000,000 spins, but without giving the full results.
(https://s2.postimg.org/74ltz6se1/coldeststreet.png)
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: falkor2k15 on Aug 08, 08:34 AM 2017
COLDEST STREET TEST

2nd dataset finished similar to first...

Number of real casino spins: 1,000,000 (excl. zero)
Starting BR: 1,000
Finishing BR: -239

Download single page summaries... (http://www.rarekungfumovies.com/roulette/TGColdestStreetsummary.zip)

TurboGenius vindicated/acquitted...? :)
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: winkel on Aug 08, 08:43 AM 2017
From what I see on his website, a forum of his in preparation too, so I am sure at least it will be deprived of such things.  :thumbsup:

I don´t have a website. And I don´t own a forum or trying to put one up!

Why do liers like you fancy such a Bullshitting

Winkel, relax. Drazen wasn't talking about your web site but someone elses.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: denzie on Aug 08, 08:44 AM 2017
I know that. But your winnings with free money do count. Thats my point.
You still arent understanding the math.

Ok so he got let's say 100k free over the months. Still my respect to turn it into 7mil  :thumbsup:

At least that's what my math tells me  :)
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: winkel on Aug 08, 08:46 AM 2017
And why do people have to "figure it out"? To Winkel, Turbo, priyanka, denzie and any other "baiters",

Where in my posts did I "bait" You are a liar!
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: ozon on Aug 08, 10:17 AM 2017
Hi Falkor
Your tests show that we have a soft edge. Play against coldest street. But have you checked whether playing 11 streets for 1 time, zero will not  eat profit.
Let's say we play 3k spins a day that's 6 hours.
In a month we have about 100k spins, which gives us 120 units a month.
You have to see how variance looks, how big a budget we need.
I assume 2000 units could be enough.
What generates a 5% return on capital.
It's not much work time but having a bot that would play 6k spins a day. It would have been better.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: falkor2k15 on Aug 08, 11:14 AM 2017
ozon, the test wasn't for profit, it was to test the concept of hot vs. cold and whether there's any negative edge/bias playing cold - based on Turbo's suggestion on the best way to lose a bet. Whether that edge is greater than 2.7% is irrelevant since we are just testing the concept - not practical play - but from this test we can at least deduce that if there's negative edge for cold then there's most likely a positive edge solution for hot. And, to some extent, this test has also succeeded on Dozens, though there were bigger draw-downs - went from 1,000 down to 290, overall.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Bayes on Aug 08, 11:20 AM 2017
@ falkor, it's hard to see what the overall result is from your tests. Can you give an expectation based on the data?

If Turbo is right and hot numbers do better than cold numbers, why don't we see it? Perhaps he would like to suggest a test we can do to confirm or refute it?

I'm not as closed-minded as you seem to think I am. If the data says hot numbers are better, then so be it, but I've yet to see it.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Drazen on Aug 08, 11:35 AM 2017
I don´t have a website. And I don´t own a forum or trying to put one up!

Why do liers like you fancy such a Bullshitting


Thank you very much Herr winkel for your kind words.

As mod nicely noticed I was referring to Bayes and his website and his forum there.

My best hope is that I was able to put my lying on even higher level with this.

Cheers

Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: falkor2k15 on Aug 08, 11:42 AM 2017
@ falkor, it's hard to see what the overall result is from your tests. Can you give an expectation based on the data?

If Turbo is right and hot numbers do better than cold numbers, why don't we see it? Perhaps he would like to suggest a test we can do to confirm or refute it?

I'm not as closed-minded as you seem to think I am. If the data says hot numbers are better, then so be it, but I've yet to see it.
The other dozens test I did has failed - it ended +900 in profit - so the result is due to variance. However, both street results seemed consistent for negative edge. Why would it work on streets and not dozens...?

I think I might have a 3 million dataset to retest streets...
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Turner on Aug 08, 11:55 AM 2017
Thank you very much Herr winkel for your kind words.

As mod nicely noticed I was referring to Bayes and his website and his forum there.

My best hope is that I was able to put my lying on even higher level with this.

Cheers

You have become more trouble since you moved to Ireland

Must be the drink

(https://www.rouletteforum.cc/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pichost.org%2Fimages%2F2017%2F08%2F08%2Ftemp_585366.png&hash=9f8b485d6661b0d121bb03cd3c7134e9) (http://www.pichost.org/image/IXjL)

Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: RayManZ on Aug 08, 12:46 PM 2017
The concept is a bit more than such a straightforward interpretation. To be able to understand you must try removing the cap on next spin odds are 1/37 or 1/38 and it never changes. If you are not able to, you will never be able to understand this. Try this one for a change, think about the odds of a spin repeating itself. When there is one spin only available, the odds of that spin repeating itself is 1/37. When there are two spins already available the odds of a repeat happening in 3rd spin is 2/37. So as you see, the odds of a spin repeating increases gradually till it becomes 1 when all the spins have spun. So if you consider this as a one set, even though the odds of next spin always remains 1/37, the odds of a repeat happening in next spin, constantly changes and in an increasing curve. I am sure the odds changing in this fashion is a fact.

Now try moving on to the next step. Take the numbers that repeat in the above sequence and create another sequence. Does odds or predictability change? Thats a question I would love you to find the answers yourselves, if you are really interested in understanding what is happening.

There were specific examples like there never being 38 numbers in 38 spins.  I refuted this. But now are vague tg explanations that are impossible to test, because they are too vague.

Why is this so hard to understand?

Spin 1: 29
Spin 2: odd of a repeat: 1/37

Spin 1: 29
Spin 2: 15
Spin 3: odd of a repeat: 2/37

The more spins you play the greater the odd get.

Now apply this to a number repeating 2 times, 3 times, 4 times.

But it does not matter what anybody says here. Because steve can't wrap his head around it. He can't apply it to a working bet selection. So everybody else is just wrong and he is right.

The people that understand it will never fully explain it. They can only prove what they are saying is true by explaining there system fully. Nobody is going to do that.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: nottophammer on Aug 08, 01:34 PM 2017
Ray
what if the owner, Bayes, Turner and even Falkor understand how a nice easy bet this is, that they don't wont others jumping on the wagon, so they try to confuse and make it look like it fails.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: cht on Aug 08, 01:37 PM 2017
Ray
what if the owner, Bayes, Turner and even Falkor understand how a nice easy bet this is, that they don't wont others jumping on the wagon, so they try to confuse and make it look like it fails.
You never know.  :lol:
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: falkor2k15 on Aug 08, 02:18 PM 2017
Why is this so hard to understand?

Spin 1: 29
Spin 2: odd of a repeat: 1/37

Spin 1: 29
Spin 2: 15
Spin 3: odd of a repeat: 2/37

The more spins you play the greater the odd get.

Now apply this to a number repeating 2 times, 3 times, 4 times.

But it does not matter what anybody says here. Because steve can't wrap his head around it. He can't apply it to a working bet selection. So everybody else is just wrong and he is right.

The people that understand it will never fully explain it. They can only prove what they are saying is true by explaining there system fully. Nobody is going to do that.
A repeat is just the 2nd, 3rd, 4th (etc.) appearance of a number. If we bet 1 dozen it's 33% and if we decide to then bet 2 dozens, the odds change to 66%, but the payout is less. So there's nothing significant here - it's simply based on how many numbers are included, and to cover them all would mean less payout.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Bayes on Aug 08, 02:40 PM 2017
Why is this so hard to understand?

Spin 1: 29
Spin 2: odd of a repeat: 1/37

Spin 1: 29
Spin 2: 15
Spin 3: odd of a repeat: 2/37

The more spins you play the greater the odd get.

Now apply this to a number repeating 2 times, 3 times, 4 times.

But it does not matter what anybody says here. Because steve can't wrap his head around it. He can't apply it to a working bet selection. So everybody else is just wrong and he is right.

The people that understand it will never fully explain it. They can only prove what they are saying is true by explaining there system fully. Nobody is going to do that.

Come on guys, this is really really basic stuff. A single spin always has the same probability, but a sequence of spins can have different probabilities, depending on how long the sequence is. The classic gambler's fallacy is to wait until some sequence has partially occurred, then jump in thinking that the original probability applies to the remainder of the sequence. It doesn't. Those spins which have passed have gone, so their probability is 1. You have to calculate the probability afresh.

So for example because 10 reds are rare, it's thought that your chance of getting a win is greater if you wait for 9 of them and then bet black. If the original probability of getting at least one black in 10 spins is 99.99%, then (so the thinking goes), if you wait for 9 reds some of that probability must be "transferred" to the next bet, so although the probability of a black may not be 99.99%, it's got be more than 18/37 right?

Wrong.

Quote
Ray
what if the owner, Bayes, Turner and even Falkor understand how a nice easy bet this is, that they don't wont others jumping on the wagon, so they try to confuse and make it look like it fails.

So now it's a conspiracy? Oh please...   ::)
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: falkor2k15 on Aug 08, 03:21 PM 2017
Come on guys, this is really really basic stuff. A single spin always has the same probability, but a sequence of spins can have different probabilities, depending on how long the sequence is. The classic gambler's fallacy is to wait until some sequence has partially occurred, then jump in thinking that the original probability applies to the remainder of the sequence. It doesn't. Those spins which have passed have gone, so their probability is 1. You have to calculate the probability afresh.

So for example because 10 reds are rare, it's thought that your chance of getting a win is greater if you wait for 9 of them and then bet black. If the original probability of getting at least one black in 10 spins is 99.99%, then (so the thinking goes), if you wait for 9 reds some of that probability must be "transferred" to the next bet, so although the probability of a black may not be 99.99%, it's got be more than 18/37 right?

Wrong.

So now it's a conspiracy? Oh please...   ::)
They aren't referring to probability over multiple spins. The above example is always for the next spin in terms of changing odds, but it's misleading. Imagine Lines:
1 Line bet = 1/6. Profit = 5
2 Line bet = 2/6. Profit = 4
3 Line bet = 3/6. Profit = 3
4 Line bet = 4/6. Profit = 2
5 Line bet = 5/6. Profit = 1
6 Line bet = 100% guaranteed. Profit = 0.

That's just a more honest, transparent, way of re-wording Priyanka and RayManZ's overrated "fact" about repeats and changing bias (described more like a magician's levitation trick - without mentioning the hidden ropes in terms of risk/reward).
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: nottophammer on Aug 08, 03:35 PM 2017
So now it's a conspiracy? Oh please...
Took the bait hook line and sinker  :lol:
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: denzie on Aug 08, 03:50 PM 2017

So now it's a conspiracy

I kneeeeeeeeeeeew it
 :girl_to:
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Turner on Aug 08, 03:58 PM 2017
Ray
what if the owner, Bayes, Turner and even Falkor understand how a nice easy bet this is, that they don't wont others jumping on the wagon, so they try to confuse and make it look like it fails.

LOL....like West Ham being a top club is a conspiracy?
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: nottophammer on Aug 08, 04:17 PM 2017
who rattled your cage
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Turner on Aug 08, 05:59 PM 2017
Sorry...I actually like West Ham lol
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: nottophammer on Aug 08, 06:04 PM 2017
Sorry...I actually like West Ham lol
Only because you get 6 points  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: falkor2k15 on Aug 09, 06:38 AM 2017
Coldest Line test failed as well... one dataset ended way in the + and the other way in the -. Perhaps the streets test was due to variance, as the negative edge is very small anyhow. And why would it work on Streets and not Lines? Priyanka's favourite group is the lines, so I think there isn't enough to go on here. As I said, I tested hot many times, and the only findings were with the positions stream. Perhaps TurboGenius is using a parallel stream, but just isn't saying... I leave you with another quote from reddwarf, whom I consider the number 1 authority on Roulette:

Quote from: reddwarf
1. Betting on an unique does not work (=guessing game)
2. Betting on a repeat is not going to work (=guessing game)

I found it a really tough journey to free myself from the black hole of "waiting for an event to happen" for example: you can try to bet on repeats, but this is nothing more than a guessing game (hence a loosing proposition); not that repeats can not be used...

Reddwarf also had this to say about the multiple repeats / progression method - similar to what's being promoted by Turbo:
win probability: 99. 74%, but because it is a progression, a loss will hammer you.  So if a different approach would be needed here.

Anyway, it was worth a try.

And I will finish by saying the same thing: it was worth a try - but I seriously doubt it's viable without a parallel stream...
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: cht on Aug 09, 07:10 AM 2017
Falkor, no surprise with your findings, it's random.

About parallel stream, here's the one I tested (single zero) -

1. Timing - start immediately after the 14unhit/23hits

2. Parallel streams - left/right and top/bottom of wheel

3. Parallel streams - if one side has a >=+3 over the other side and not not more than 15 (check at point 1, if not skip to start with new spins), ignore zero

4. Where there both l/r and t/b show similar bias gap, choose the one that came in earliest, (always choose the larger gap)

5. Bet hits (chosen hot side numbers) for repeats to hit 3times then stop. If loss -3 stop

6. Break-even - If there're already 2 repeats and the net profit/loss is in positive, do not go for the bet for the 3rd repeat if the net positive balance is reduced to zero

There you have it, no secrets no big deal.  Now, will this hold up tested over a large sample IDK. Can somebody kindly test this, post the results ? If it fails as well I'm not surprise, it's worth a try. Thanks
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: maestro on Aug 09, 08:43 AM 2017
Quote
whom I consider the number 1 authority on Roulette:


@falkor...where can i read his teachings..thx
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: cht on Aug 09, 08:52 AM 2017
Here's the Nickmsi spreadsheet that I expanded for the above. You can test whatever parallel stream by changing the lookup table on the far right. Let us know what you find.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: cht on Aug 09, 11:28 AM 2017
As I told you guys earlier I don't read threads. Since I'm noticed the Repeaters thread today I read it to find notto referenced to another thread started by Colbster "Are there really 37 outcomes". Colbster's explanation is exactly what I had in mind, and Falkor's streams idea comes into play. I noticed it on notto's charts that he posted here. If you're looking for a crytal clear explanation read Colbster's post on that thread especially about the number of numbers to payout and the calculations stuff. Winkel posted the distribution table. You guys were already on it 3 yrs ago. And what guided me to 14/23 ? WTF !
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: falkor2k15 on Aug 09, 11:37 AM 2017
As I told you guys earlier I don't read threads. Since I'm noticed the Repeaters thread today I read it to find notto referenced to another thread started by Colbster "Are there really 37 outcomes". Colbster's explanation is exactly what I had in mind, and Falkor's streams idea comes into play. I noticed it on notto's charts that he posted here. If you're looking for a crytal clear explanation read Colbster's post on that thread. Winkel posted the distribution table. You guys were already on it 3 yrs ago. WTF !
I was thinking about that yesterday and today. The only way Turbo might be winning on single stream numbers instead of dozens is if he's somehow taking advantage of those last few outcomes that aren't really outcomes at all - only occurs in numbers and not in single/double streets or dozens, etc.

I'm still trying to understand your suggested method above, but it seems a little complicated in terms of a trigger? Not sure if I understand it clearly enough yet to begin a test.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: cht on Aug 09, 11:51 AM 2017
Colbster described it clearly in post #17 & #19. The only thing I don't agree with him is the cycles where he erases off from the earlier hit number to start a new cycle.

If you do that the old cycle is still in play, that means what happens in the old cycle(good or bad) may still influence the current cycle - you're using the spins on a rolling basis. Why not start with a fresh set of spins, I recommend moving over to a new wheel, they have 20-24spins on the board already so no waiting time. But then the current wheel might favour the repeaters ldk.  ;D
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Moxy on Aug 09, 09:54 PM 2017
You have the hg denzie?

One system is no better than another because it's all random accuracy betting. Same odds, same payouts, same thing.

 I want to be proven wrong.

So your hobby is fishing for the hg by goading them with future adulation?  I don't care if Turbo has figured it out or not but you went along with him on here till you decided that he was just a baiter which he very well may be by your def.

Regardless, I think we need to redefined that word and acknowledge, in spirit, who the actual baiters are.   

On the flip side it baffles me why people come on here to lay out vague machinations that no can and should follow, only to string them in the end or something.

Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Aug 09, 10:33 PM 2017
So your hobby is fishing for the hg by goading them with future adulation?

Huh? Don't make it needlessly complicated. When something is inaccurate, I'll explain why.

I don't care if Turbo has figured it out or not but you went along with him on here till you decided that he was just a baiter which he very well may be by your def.

Actually I specifically said I dont believe he's a baiter. It's a simple case of him being wrong.

Regardless, I think we need to redefined that word and acknowledge, in spirit, who the actual baiters are. 

There are no active "baiters" here at the moment.

On the flip side it baffles me why people come on here to lay out vague machinations that no can and should follow, only to string them in the end or something.

Historically we know why. Typically for attention and ego, at the expense of others.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: maestro on Aug 09, 10:40 PM 2017
Quote
There are no active "baiters" here at the moment.


only suckers... :xd: :xd: :xd:
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Moxy on Aug 09, 10:44 PM 2017
Here we go again. Im just trying to protect my system selling business and cant stand to see the hg exist, right?

Or how about turbo started this by posing questions for anyone to answer, and Im answering.

Im a player before seller of anything and if turbo has something better than what I have, then Id like to use it. I give my best methods free then players pay me part of winnings. Dont assume my focus is only what you see.

As for all this, it is perhaps an unpopular fact that so far Turbos statements are inaccurate. Ive explained why already, but its not being understood. So once turbo answers my wuestions, I can propose some testing to see if I actually know what Im talking about, or Turbo has something thats not clasdic fallacy.

Lets put aside the snide comments and let proper testing prevail, agreed?

Im interested in the truth, whatever it may be. I am not bound to what i think i know. I open to any change in my understanding. But when im told 1+1=400 im going to keep an open mind, but still carefully investigate the claim with a proper approach.

No.  They got it all wrong.  You DO want the hg to exist (Considering the current state of counter tactics) And you want it on the cheap/free because you think Turbo would go through that trouble of testing it with millions of spins because he's a good sport sharing his time and effort. 

The galls.   TG doesn't owe any of these people anything, you included.   Correction, at you giving away your method.   More like licensing out your device indefinitely to go play for profit sharing.  You have a way with words.  Also, I didn't know proper business goes hand in hand with socialism here.



Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Aug 09, 11:01 PM 2017
You DO want the hg to exist

Yeah, so what? Dont you also want it to exist?

And you want it on the cheap/free

I have offered a price, if there are no HGs or no takers, big whoop. I'll still sleep.

you think Turbo would go through that trouble of testing it with millions of spins because he's a good sport sharing his time and effort.

Millions of spins?

And dont overcomplicate it. Simply he made inaccurate claims and misled people, so I just explained the mistakes.

TG doesn't owe any of these people anything, you included

Yeah we all know that. Again dont over-complicate it. When inaccurate claims are made, some people correct them. I dont care if he shares or not.

Correction, at you giving away your method.

Initial investment and risk of being scammed is what people fear most. The point is they pay me nothing to start.

Also, I didn't know proper business goes hand in hand with socialism here.

You are missing the point and making things more than what they are.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Moxy on Aug 09, 11:52 PM 2017
Well here's hoping no one is desperate/stupid enough to relinquish their proprietary rights for pennies to the dollar on here. 
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Bayes on Aug 10, 03:19 AM 2017
I leave you with another quote from reddwarf, whom I consider the number 1 authority on Roulette:

Why do members think certain people are "authorities"? Only because they claim they have the HG. They say that this doesn't work or that doesn't work, but they never tell you what does work, only drop vague hints. I consider the number 1 authority to be math, because it's always right.  >:D

And the rule about no baiting has nothing to do with socialism. It doesn't say if you have the HG you should post it because everyone has the "right" to know it, only that IF you claim you have but only post endless hints, you should expect to be moderated.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: nottophammer on Aug 10, 05:28 AM 2017
Mr Bayes
 you are probably correct that
you consider the number 1 authority to be math, because it's always right.  >:D
But that wheel does not know, it has to obey these laws or you'd be a winner  >:D
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Aug 10, 05:36 AM 2017
The wheel doesnt know or care. The winning number is just cause and effect. And math is an expression of the same thing. It means random accuracy = long term loss.

Its not complicated. Its not a case where the wheel doesnt know about rules, so doesnt need to follow rules.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: nottophammer on Aug 10, 05:58 AM 2017
The wheel doesnt know or care. The winning number is just cause and effect. And math is an expression of the same thing. It means random accuracy = long term loss.

Its not complicated. Its not a case where the wheel doesnt know about rules, so doesnt need to follow rules.
so why make such a song about it
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: nottophammer on Aug 10, 06:05 AM 2017
Wally
1st game bet fred, take 1st profit, as we are unsure of Turbo/dezies method, so who's to say play this way is wrong.
(https://www.rouletteforum.cc/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pichost.org%2Fimages%2F2017%2F08%2F10%2Ftemp_967272.png&hash=3592432c2ae2d256c8ddf14bf9746b0e) (http://www.pichost.org/image/IBoU)
If carry on with 4 units on R3 be 40 units down that profit is going, only need some more to go R3 and that black hole is there.

Steve please don't waffle on about accuracy or the math
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: nottophammer on Aug 10, 06:22 AM 2017
If you start as mentioned bet at spin 1, using 1 unit over the 1st cycle, dont this cycle need 703 units, if thats correct then 20 wins of value 36 units are needed to win.(720)

Now is the LOTT a recognised piece of math, who cares :lol: it is said you'll likely get 23/24/25 non-hit come, so lets take the usual quoted 24 and 13 pockets never hit, which become those repeats that hotties are aiming for.
As we're using 1unit, the 1,2,3 prog, when a number hits, we dont have a new number to bet, but place it on the repeat, so we've increased to 2 units of the 1,2,3 prog, if we went to 5 units, the cycle value has now changed further than the 703 units, would a late win on all pockets being bet at 5 units make a profit ? look at the bet fred sheet black hole looming
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: nottophammer on Aug 10, 06:24 AM 2017
Just got wood steve so i wondered who to jizz, jizzed your last post for the fun of it
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: 3Nine on Aug 10, 07:05 AM 2017
Hey Bayes,
I think this has been asked before but, what math?

What the thinker thinks, the prover proves. - William James


Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: nottophammer on Aug 10, 07:07 AM 2017
Again Wally if you've had chance to look at your e-mail, this is in PP paddy power.
Now this machine is minimum .25p unit, what i like as it increaments in 1 all the way, not like the other FOBT roulette games where after reaching a £1 unit it then goes to £2, not £1.25
It also shows hot/cold #'s and when the zero last appeared.
So on the marquee is latest spin 22
22
07
24
05
24
20
20
27
18
28
34
19
20
13
10
11
Now #24 is shown as 1 of the 5 hotties, dont remember the others, but zero is cold and has missed for 19 spins as i start, ok.
Look whos showing, so is it just a ploy showing the hot/cold.
(https://www.rouletteforum.cc/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pichost.org%2Fimages%2F2017%2F08%2F10%2Ftemp_782517.png&hash=6570407b0ad927aa10d15405640dab27) (http://www.pichost.org/image/IL0g)
I walked with +32 just watching for bets whether non-hit or repeats using the trot of the starting 37#'s, but as i always say take the 1st profit and start again.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Aug 10, 07:16 AM 2017
Just got wood steve so i wondered who to jizz, jizzed your last post for the fun of it

Don't get into a jizzwar with me. We can't keep jizzing all over the place.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Bayes on Aug 10, 09:37 AM 2017
Hey Bayes,
I think this has been asked before but, what math?

What the thinker thinks, the prover proves. - William James

Hi 3Nine, what do you mean what math? Basic probability.

That quote applies to psychology, which is about subjectivity. There are such things as objective facts too which are beyond opinion.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: 3Nine on Aug 10, 11:15 AM 2017
Hi 3Nine, what do you mean what math? Basic probability.

That quote applies to psychology, which is about subjectivity. There are such things as objective facts too which are beyond opinion.

Actually, it's a fact of life but we don't need to get into that here. 

What if there's something that uses math but cannot be proven (via formal proof), yet?  So, it's no longer an opinion because it works (fact).   Just a thought... oh, there we go again being subjective, I guess.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: falkor2k15 on Aug 10, 11:42 AM 2017
I'm having one last look at number repeat levels across 37 spins:
R1 12 R2 16
R1 5 R2 18 R3 30
R1 13 R2 26
R1 8 R2 18
R1 8 R2 24 R3 31
R1 10 R2 23 R3 36
R1 8 R2 15 R3 20
R1 6 R2 7 R3 14 R4 17
R1 8 R2 25
R1 7 R2 16 R3 25 R4 30
R1 3 R2 29
R1 5 R2 16 R3 34
R1 2 R2 15 R3 31
R1 6 R2 19 R3 32
R1 10 R2 11 R3 33
R1 13 R2 18
R1 5 R2 10 R3 22
R1 12 R2 13
R1 5 R2 10 R3 14 R4 31
R1 8 R2 12 R3 35
R1 9 R2 25
R1 9 R2 18 R3 24
R1 10 R2 16 R3 26
R1 8 R2 14 R3 36
R1 12 R2 23
R1 2 R2 25 R3 36
R1 11 R2 18

All seem to be having 2 repeats. Most get to 3 repeats and some get to 4 repeats (2nd column is spin number).
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Moxy on Aug 10, 12:44 PM 2017
Why do members think certain people are "authorities"? Only because they claim they have the HG. They say that this doesn't work or that doesn't work, but they never tell you what does work, only drop vague hints. I consider the number 1 authority to be math, because it's always right.  >:D

And the rule about no baiting has nothing to do with socialism. It doesn't say if you have the HG you should post it because everyone has the "right" to know it, only that IF you claim you have but only post endless hints, you should expect to be moderated.

Armchair psych take:

Anyone who gives a term and price for a purportedly hg is instantly a fraud.  If it's too cheap, we all know it's phony; if it's a million dollars, they're clearly insane since it doesn't exist.

Anyone who seemingly layout their system template for all to see, is for some reason, seen as potentially pure and honest and given a chance to prove himself.  Cause hey, maybe it does exist.

Yet there is zero correlation from legitimacy to whether they prefer to share or put a money value to it. 

Free = we very could have the hg here folks.
Not free = scam - don't even bother.

Def of insanity, exercise in futility, cuckoo... Cuckoo....

P.s.  Is it wrong to admit that, subconsciously, folks want things relatively easily no matter how far reaching it could be, e.g.,  millions of dollars, the hg, Kate Upton.  Unless your Tom Cruise, some chap who cracked the code, or Justin Verlander (rich pro baseball player shagging Kate) respectively, it may be a tad of a stretch.  Yet we soldier on.  (Editorial we)

Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: falkor2k15 on Aug 11, 11:15 AM 2017
Here you go cht, the ones you requested:

In 37 spins to expect a fourth hit:
Number of spins: 9999990
Number of cycles of 37 spins: 270270
Cycles with four hits: 134963 / 270270
Percentage: 49%

In 74 spins to expect a fifth hit:
Number of spins: 9999990
Number of cycles of 74 spins: 135135
Cycles with five hits: 122565 / 135135
Percentage: 90%
I think this topic has a lot of stats that are not really useful - just leads everyone astray - and I've been getting lots of emails from people running around like headless chickens trying to crack Turbo's method. We know that we can expect 4x to get to 5x in 74 spins or 2s to get to 3s in 37 spins, but the crucial thing that everyone seems oblivious to: sometimes it could take less than 10 spins - other times more than 20 spins - so any progression is going to reach table limits and eat the BR; just subtract the spins below from right to left:

R2   18   R3   30
R2   24   R3   31
R2   23   R3   36
R2   15   R3   20
R2   7   R3   14
R2   16   R3   25
R2   16   R3   34
R2   15   R3   31
R2   19   R3   32
R2   11   R3   33
R2   10   R3   22
R2   10   R3   14
R2   12   R3   35
R2   18   R3   24
R2   16   R3   26
R2   14   R3   36
R2   25   R3   36
R2   17   R3   32
R2   26   R3   36
R2   26   R3   29
R2   17   R3   21
R2   24   R3   30
R2   21   R3   29
R2   21   R3   22
R2   5   R3   35
R2   22   R3   28
R2   16   R3   26
R2   14   R3   22
R2   18   R3   36
R2   20   R3   28

Let's take 2x to 3x:
Download simulation... (http://www.rarekungfumovies.com/roulette/2sTo3s.zip)

We need to be asking ourselves 3 important questions - and they have nothing to do with progressions:
1) Can we figure out whether we should continue betting 2s to 3s or stop betting depending on the trot?
2) Should we bet all the numbers at repeat level 2 or just the earliest or most recent ones?
3) Can the previous cycle help us with the current cycle in terms of variance?

Again, just take a look at the above sim and watch each attempt per cycle at trying to catch a repeat on the 2s to the first 3. Is there something here that can be exploited?
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Turner on Aug 11, 12:43 PM 2017
Falkor...I dont know how you come to your conclusions on Turbos play...in fact...I dont understand your conclusions...infact..I dont get anything you say really
Having spoke with TG on a few occasions he picks set of numbers and plays them for 38 spins.
He states that adding to the winners isnt enough, per se, to pay for the un hitting numbers by using a mild progression.
At the cycle end he makes changes by reducing (or clearing) numbers hitting on or below average. He uses a progression on the numbers hittin above average

Does he re add to the removed numbers during the second cycle? I dont know
What is his progression? I dont know

How old are you?....you dont know  :o
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: RouletteGhost on Aug 11, 01:09 PM 2017
Falkor...I dont know how you come to your conclusions on Turbos play...in fact...I dont understand your conclusions...infact..I dont get anything you say really


Turner. I am sure you have by now figured out that this is by design

(https://media3.giphy.com/media/K6VhXtbgCXqQU/giphy.gif)
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: falkor2k15 on Aug 11, 04:17 PM 2017
Now you know how I feel when Notto posts something - yet he doesn't get any flack!  >:D

As #winkel used to say: "watch the trot, fellas!"  :thumbsup:

8   0s   0s   0s   R1   0s   0s   R2   7                                                                                    
8   R1   0s   0s   R1   0s   0s   0s   R1   R2   9                                                                              
6   R1   R1   0s   0s   0s   R1   0s   0s   R1   0s   0s   0s   0s   R1   0s   0s   R1   0s   0s   R2   20                                             
5   0s   0s   0s   0s   0s   R1   R1   R2   8                                                                                 
1   0s   0s   0s   0s   0s   0s   R1   0s   R1   R1   R1   0s   R1   R1   0s   0s   0s   0s   R2   19                                                
1   0s   0s   0s   R2   4                                                                                             
8   R1   0s   R1   0s   R1   R1   R1   0s   R2   9                                                                              
7   R2   1                                                                                                      
8   R1   0s   0s   0s   0s   R1   R1   0s   0s   R1   0s   R2   12                                                                     
3   R1   0s   0s   R1   0s   0s   0s   0s   0s   0s   R1   R2   12                                                                     
12   0s   0s   0s   R1   R1   R1   0s   0s   0s   0s   R1   R1   0s   0s   R1   0s   R2   17                                                      
2   0s   0s   0s   0s   0s   0s   R1   0s   R1   0s   R1   0s   R2   13                                                                  
2   0s   0s   0s   0s   0s   R1   0s   0s   0s   0s   R1   0s   0s   R1   R1   R2   16                                                         
9   0s   0s   0s   0s   0s   0s   0s   R1   R1   R1   R1   R1   0s   R1   R2   15                                                            
11   0s   0s   R1   0s   R1   0s   0s   R1   0s   0s   R2   11                                                                        
1   R2   1                                                                                                      
11   0s   0s   0s   0s   0s   R1   R1   0s   0s   R1   0s   0s   R1   R1   0s   0s   R1   0s   R2   19                                                
2   0s   0s   R1   R1   0s   0s   0s   R1   R1   R2   10                                                                              
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Turner on Aug 11, 05:00 PM 2017
seriously Falkor, and no disrespect intended but what the f*** does all that mean.

I really will listen if you explain it.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Aug 11, 05:04 PM 2017
It's the trot. What's the trot? Nobody knows.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: falkor2k15 on Aug 11, 05:09 PM 2017
seriously Falkor, and no disrespect intended but what the f*** does all that mean.

I really will listen if you explain it.
Trot(definition): distribution behaviour re: each permutation of random numbers.

Not my word - was used by other members long before I came here...
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: DoctorSudoku on Aug 11, 05:20 PM 2017

What if there's something that uses math but cannot be proven (via formal proof), yet?  So, it's no longer an opinion because it works (fact).   


That is a valid point.

The most conspicuous example that I can think of (that is roulette-related) is the Law of the Thirds (LOTT).

The LOTT cannot be rigorously proved mathematically -- but it is an empirical fact that can be observed in nearly all samples of 38-number cycles.

Whether it can be practically exploited to construct a consistently winning betting method is a different matter.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: falkor2k15 on Aug 11, 05:21 PM 2017
Here's an excerpt from the GUT ebook:
(https://s7.postimg.org/6exd7ssi3/trot.png)
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: ozon on Aug 11, 05:24 PM 2017
One more concept of hot numbers game.
We want to play numbers that are hot now, in play only numbers that hit 2 times in the last 10 spins by 25 spins, so we only play hot numbers that are hot at the moment. Numbers will not be much.
And so I suppose, by playing a flat rate, we have no edge in long run.
In the TURBO method, the progression is still unknown.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: DoctorSudoku on Aug 11, 05:30 PM 2017

Now you know how I feel when Notto posts something - yet he doesn't get any flack!  >:D


Gilius-Falkor,
I agree -- Nottop's tables (because of the accompanying explanations) are as abstruse as the stuff that you post, yet you get much more flak for your efforts than he does.

Of course, one mitigating factor that works in Nottop's favor is that he doesn't advocate flat earth-related stuff ad nauseam as you do.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: maestro on Aug 11, 05:35 PM 2017
trot

verb
1.
(with reference to a horse or other quadruped) proceed or cause to proceed at a pace faster than a walk, lifting each diagonal pair of legs alternately.
"the horses trotted slowly through the night"
2.
(of a person) run at a moderate pace with short steps.
"the child trotted across to her obediently"
synonyms:   run, jog, jogtrot, dogtrot, lope; More
noun
1.
a trotting pace.
"our horses slowed to a trot"
2.
informal
diarrhoea.





could mean <informal>2<....... :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Aug 11, 05:41 PM 2017
 Why doesnt someone program the trot algorithm in rx then run a meaningful test? Then we can know if it's a waste of time.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: RouletteGhost on Aug 11, 05:43 PM 2017
define waste of time

if someone does it for 2 years successfully and is in profit then who cares what 1 million spins (which we will never play) says
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: RouletteGhost on Aug 11, 06:17 PM 2017
"Your method is winning you money but it does not matter and does not count because you will never play enough spins that will make it lose (worth your while) "

sorry, not seeing the point of that argument. I am on turbos side with that

"you won but, but, but if you played for 3 million spins you would lose"

Caleb also loves this argument. But it is a stupid argument. " You did not play enough spins!"

if the method is effective in the short term and the variance that would make it lose requires a million spins THEN WHO CARES




(https://media.giphy.com/media/CDJo4EgHwbaPS/giphy.gif)
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: falkor2k15 on Aug 11, 06:20 PM 2017
Why do members think certain people are "authorities"? Only because they claim they have the HG. They say that this doesn't work or that doesn't work, but they never tell you what does work, only drop vague hints. I consider the number 1 authority to be math, because it's always right.  >:D
reddwarf is the undisputed master of Roulette! If you thought you knew maths, this guy is on some next level... but logic and problem solving is more important. Red can play both normal and opposite each spin, shifted by 1, and break even each time - but profit on every repeat! When Red ain't playing Roulette, he's probably working on this project instead:
You get me? Manz don't know innit... Manz ain't ready!  :lol:
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Turner on Aug 11, 06:20 PM 2017
Here's an excerpt from the GUT ebook:
(https://s7.postimg.org/6exd7ssi3/trot.png)

Actually, thanks. That is concise.

It could be also described like-a-dis

slow trot - distribution below expectation
fast trot - distribution above expectation
as predicted trot - normal distribution
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Turner on Aug 11, 06:23 PM 2017
If you thought you knew maths, this guy is on some next level.
lol....you cant even work out the difference between 1981 and 2017
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: DoctorSudoku on Aug 11, 06:27 PM 2017


if someone does it for 2 years successfully and is in profit then who cares what 1 million spins (which we will never play) says


But do they -- in actuality?

A lot of similar claims have been made in these forums over the years, so it is a justified question.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Turner on Aug 11, 06:29 PM 2017
if the method is effective in the short term and the variance that would make it lose requires a million spins THEN WHO CARES
but you dont know where you are in that million

I stand you on a trapdoor with sharp spikes below, hell, I'll throw a few walkers from the walking dead in there too.

I then tell you I will give you $100 if you stand on the trap door for 5 mins.

I then tell you it opens every 2 hours. Any questions?

"Yes, when did it last open?"........I reply "I dont know"

(I can hear them groaning..."errrrrrgh....errrrrrgh")
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: DoctorSudoku on Aug 11, 06:30 PM 2017
An addendum to my previous post:

A  certain former president used to say, "Trust but verify."

There is nothing wrong with applying the above quote in this context / situation.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: RouletteGhost on Aug 11, 06:32 PM 2017
but you dont know where you are in that million

I stand you on a trapdoor with sharp spikes below, hell, I'll throw a few walkers from the walking dead in there too.

I then tell you I will give you $100 if you stand on the trap door for 5 mins.

I then tell you it opens every 2 hours. Any questions?

"Yes, when did it last open?"........I reply "I dont know"

true

but i see the not enough spins argument as rubbish

example: i do not play ktf, but I know the kind of guy notto is. i will take his word that hes been winning with it

who cares about 72 million spins
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Turner on Aug 11, 06:35 PM 2017
i do not play ktf, but I know the kind of guy notto is. i will take his word that hes been winning with it

I do worry about people who keep saying they win with a system that  clearly fails to the HE

In fairness, Notto has reported failures many times.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Turner on Aug 11, 06:40 PM 2017
but you dont know where you are in that million

I stand you on a trapdoor with sharp spikes below, hell, I'll throw a few walkers from the walking dead in there too.

I then tell you I will give you $100 if you stand on the trap door for 5 mins.

I then tell you it opens every 2 hours. Any questions?

"Yes, when did it last open?"........I reply "I dont know"

(I can hear them groaning..."errrrrrgh....errrrrrgh")

Now make my trapdoor random and opening every 2 hours on average every 1 million hours
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: nottophammer on Aug 11, 07:13 PM 2017
In fairness, Notto has reported failures many times.
Yes it gets caught, to the suggested 50/-800, but in trying something i did say 4000 units would be what would be best to have as br, The tester Pryi gave me is excellent and with the stop loss not there it almost never losses.
I use Morts #'s and it does ok, spins posted in real roulette spins for german casinos does ok, but like in the KTF topic some member said just take the 1st profit, and he or she is not wrong, dont matter what method the longer you stay the more chance of crash and burn
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: nottophammer on Aug 11, 07:21 PM 2017
Had 200+ spins on MPR trying for repeats and the spins where as smooth as you could get, nothing broke away, hit the tier then be in the neighbour to zero back down a couple in tier.
1st 28 spins 2 repeats
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: cht on Aug 11, 08:37 PM 2017
We need to be asking ourselves 3 important questions - and they have nothing to do with progressions:
1) Can we figure out whether we should continue betting 2s to 3s or stop betting depending on the trot?

1. Watching the trot is to watch the deviation as the spin unfolds. The idea is to bet for mean reversion. 2. You have various trots of unhits to hits, hit's to repeat1, repeat1 to repeat2, repeat2 to repeat 3 and so on. 3. The deeper you get, eg. repeat 2 to repeat3 and further out, the trot is more dispersed. 4. I don't see how the trot can help figure out the right decision to make. I see only random.

2) Should we bet all the numbers at repeat level 2 or just the earliest or most recent ones?

Test both types of bets separately, they're different sets of bet. If you're looking at earliest/recent, earliest is the better choice.

3) Can the previous cycle help us with the current cycle in terms of variance?

No, it can't.

Again, just take a look at the above sim and watch each attempt per cycle at trying to catch a repeat on the 2s to the first 3. Is there something here that can be exploited?

Based on just the 2s trot, not that I've seen there's nothing there to exploit, just plain random.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: cht on Aug 11, 08:53 PM 2017
Why doesnt someone program the trot algorithm in rx then run a meaningful test? Then we can know if it's a waste of time.
The trot described in post #566 does not help, it's a waste of time. If it was anything, many would have seen the use with the various trot trackers posted on the forums. At best it gives the 'feel' of providing the better guess since we get to see the real spins versus the binomial distribution with the tendency for mean reversion to kick in. It's random.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: cht on Aug 11, 10:00 PM 2017
define waste of time

if someone does it for 2 years successfully and is in profit then who cares what 1 million spins (which we will never play) says
I don't see the possibility of long term success. If a significant number of people use this original method to play the game, there's always those who got lucky to be in profit. And it doesn't need 1 million spins(probably 10k ?) to know it fails.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Aug 12, 02:48 AM 2017
Exactly. Proper testing separates luck and legitimate effectiveness.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: nottophammer on Aug 12, 02:49 AM 2017
The trot described in post #566 does not help, it's a waste of time.yes,it only shows repeats happened, which we know has to happen. If it was anything, many would have seen the use with the various trot trackers posted on the forums. At best it gives the 'feel'you need to track manually, to feel the trot. of providing the better guess since we get to see the real spins versus the binomial distribution with the tendency for mean reversion to kick in. It's random. but you can follow random, if you know what to look for.
Now a stupid sentence, why non-hit. Well it's obvious, when you start to play the 1st of the due 37#'s appears. How does that 1 spin help you, on outside bets? so more spins are needed.
anyway here's a take of how i watch the invisible trot, 1st 7 replies, to understand the trot, to me you need to feel whats going on, you only get that from experiance and your studying of 40 to 60 spins.
Why does 15.8 non-hit in spins 11-40 not change now, why do i see on that sheet 60 spins has avg of constant 30.5, it seems to good, drop the point, 15 non-hit in 30 spins and 30 in 60 spins.

So look at the 7 replies in https://www.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=18360.0 if you know the non-hits averages your on your way to winning, took a lot of studying methods and watching how the non-hit affect these methods, as i said for Turner last night i have had my fingers burnt along the way, but my biggets lightbulb moment came when reading GUT and to understand the crossings of non-hits i had to make a paper tracker, which i have posted with plenty of examples of the trot.
Only thing with GUT its waiting for the crossings and unless you r as smart as Mr Winkel and can watch umpteen sheets its slow, thats why i learnt the trot to see when and if a bet is favourable, be it a non-hit or for repeats.

That sheet on the opening page of ROTT is brilliant, look how old the post is, theres the avg, that avg is everywhere, Morts #'s, others posted spins, and that avg is there.
So good luck.

Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: nottophammer on Aug 12, 03:44 AM 2017
In fairness, Notto has reported failures many times.
Turner and RG. This is a losing game of KTF, but it can be a winning Game, but you need the Units.
I'm not trying to justify KTF, take from it what you want, but if you except that the larger group is more likely to show, then that makes you bet non-hit, untill the 1x's get big enough to become a problem,
So again you need to know the 37 non-hits, averages.
(https://www.rouletteforum.cc/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pichost.org%2Fimages%2F2017%2F08%2F12%2Ftemp_292284.png&hash=2b2304fa6059d6e772e243e4f1a2a682) (http://www.pichost.org/image/IPMx)
So this is the loser, but you could jump upto the 26th spins with various profits. But look at the non-hit count, at 26th spin we bet 20 #'s, now theres 19 left, so its 50/50 the 1x's could start to be a nuisance, so upto the 19th they avg to hit in 2 spins, its now missed the avg you look up the max to hit, your just watching you've let 2 spins go, if you started to bet, 4th bet win.
(https://www.rouletteforum.cc/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pichost.org%2Fimages%2F2017%2F08%2F12%2Ftemp_161328.png&hash=e87b35ce8bd6d67f9f8dd3579f72ebd8) (http://www.pichost.org/image/IgIK)
So here we can see it climbs out the hole.
At spin 40 the non-hit are behind to countback, we're having to bet 16 non-hit, but we should have been only having to bet 14 if the 15 had come in spins 11-40. So -2 on the expected 15.
Now how many usually come in 60 spins 30.5 of the buggers. you see we're betting 16 so 21 have come, so if 30 come by 60th spin are we going to see 9 more come, answer yes as the 60th spin the the 8 is a winner, leaving just 7 to bet, so theres the 30 in 60 spins.

Now them repeats are not big blocks, what are the avg to hit and max, know that and you can walk a winner.



Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: falkor2k15 on Aug 12, 03:46 AM 2017
We need to be asking ourselves 3 important questions - and they have nothing to do with progressions:
1) Can we figure out whether we should continue betting 2s to 3s or stop betting depending on the trot?

1. Watching the trot is to watch the deviation as the spin unfolds. The idea is to bet for mean reversion. 2. You have various trots of unhits to hits, hit's to repeat1, repeat1 to repeat2, repeat2 to repeat 3 and so on. 3. The deeper you get, eg. repeat 2 to repeat3 and further out, the trot is more dispersed. 4. I don't see how the trot can help figure out the right decision to make. I see only random.

2) Should we bet all the numbers at repeat level 2 or just the earliest or most recent ones?

Test both types of bets separately, they're different sets of bet. If you're looking at earliest/recent, earliest is the better choice.

3) Can the previous cycle help us with the current cycle in terms of variance?

No, it can't.

Again, just take a look at the above sim and watch each attempt per cycle at trying to catch a repeat on the 2s to the first 3. Is there something here that can be exploited?

Based on just the 2s trot, not that I've seen there's nothing there to exploit, just plain random.
You sound like a shill trying to stop the public from discovering the golden goose! :D Don't worry. Since nobody even knows about the flat earth, ignores all factual evidence that is posted about the flat earth and roulette, they certainly won't listen to anything I say, so there's no danger.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: nottophammer on Aug 12, 03:51 AM 2017
Here you are the sheet, no need to lie, or be fooling my self.
3/8/17 +50 spin 15
4//8/17 lose but you could win
5/8/17 +57 spin 16
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: falkor2k15 on Aug 12, 04:00 AM 2017
So look at the 7 replies in https://www.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=18360.0 if you know the non-hits averages your on your way to winning, took a lot of studying methods and watching how the non-hit affect these methods, as i said for Turner last night i have had my fingers burnt along the way, but my biggets lightbulb moment came when reading GUT and to understand the crossings of non-hits i had to make a paper tracker, which i have posted with plenty of examples of the trot.
Only thing with GUT its waiting for the crossings and unless you r as smart as Mr Winkel and can watch umpteen sheets its slow, thats why i learnt the trot to see when and if a bet is favourable, be it a non-hit or for repeats.
#Winkel and Notto were right all along - sing along with me: "Trotity trot, trotity trot, the noughts became overtly hot! Merily, merily, merily, merily, the 2s went gently down the stream..." (https://www.rouletteforum.cc/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsimpleicon.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Fmusic-note-5-256x256.png&hash=d90cb20e50de7cca4feff5a19e900211) (https://www.rouletteforum.cc/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsimpleicon.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Fmusic-note-5-256x256.png&hash=d90cb20e50de7cca4feff5a19e900211)
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: cht on Aug 12, 05:08 AM 2017
You sound like a shill trying to stop the public from discovering the golden goose! :D Don't worry. Since nobody even knows about the flat earth, ignores all factual evidence that is posted about the flat earth and roulette, they certainly won't listen to anything I say, so there's no danger.
You asked I answered according to the test I did based solely on unhits, hits, repeat1, repeat2......the binomial distribution and nothing else. If you or anyone else found something different, post clear rules here, I will test it.

As to the parallel streams you suggested earlier, then yes there's something and my tests confirmed it. If you or anyone wants to go down the rabbit hole, this is the path.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: cht on Aug 12, 05:41 AM 2017
Now a stupid sentence, why non-hit. Well it's obvious, when you start to play the 1st of the due 37#'s appears. How does that 1 spin help you, on outside bets? so more spins are needed.
anyway here's a take of how i watch the invisible trot, 1st 7 replies, to understand the trot, to me you need to feel whats going on, you only get that from experiance and your studying of 40 to 60 spins.
Why does 15.8 non-hit in spins 11-40 not change now, why do i see on that sheet 60 spins has avg of constant 30.5, it seems to good, drop the point, 15 non-hit in 30 spins and 30 in 60 spins.

So look at the 7 replies in https://www.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=18360.0 if you know the non-hits averages your on your way to winning, took a lot of studying methods and watching how the non-hit affect these methods, as i said for Turner last night i have had my fingers burnt along the way, but my biggets lightbulb moment came when reading GUT and to understand the crossings of non-hits i had to make a paper tracker, which i have posted with plenty of examples of the trot.
Only thing with GUT its waiting for the crossings and unless you r as smart as Mr Winkel and can watch umpteen sheets its slow, thats why i learnt the trot to see when and if a bet is favourable, be it a non-hit or for repeats.

That sheet on the opening page of ROTT is brilliant, look how old the post is, theres the avg, that avg is everywhere, Morts #'s, others posted spins, and that avg is there.
So good luck.
I agree about the non-hits. Repeat1, repeat2 and so on gets a lot more dispersed, I'm sure we all observed that. Colbster, winkel, yourself and some other guys were on that trail 3yrs ago. That thread just went cold, Colbster didn't follow up on the loose end he mentioned about another thread, no progress ?
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: nottophammer on Aug 12, 05:50 AM 2017
I agree about the non-hits. Repeat1, repeat2 and so on gets a lot more dispersed, I'm sure we all observed that. Colbster, winkel, yourself and some other guys were on that trail 3yrs ago. That thread just went cold, Colbster didn't follow up on the loose end he mentioned about another thread, no progress ?
But what will help to win is keep singing Falkors ditty
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Aug 12, 06:42 AM 2017
Quote
You sound like a shill trying to stop the public from discovering the golden goose! :D Don't worry. Since nobody even knows about the flat earth, ignores all factual evidence that is posted about the flat earth and roulette, they certainly won't listen to anything I say, so there's no danger.

You still dont get it. People dont listen because you are usually very vague and cryptic. And with things you are clear about, you're incorrect.

For example, I asked for your best proof of flat earth crap and you referred me to videos. And with one exception, every piece of proof was a load of shit showing very poor understanding, and pathetic logic. Flat earthers are some of the dumbest people I have ever seen. Its not an attempt to insult. It is a fact.

What i find most alarming is real people still cant see the facts right in front of their face. It shouldnt be so hard.

The only arguments i found valid are the satellite photos. But they are not proof of flat earth. Its more likely something like partial image stitching.

And there is no conspiracy by people here to hide your HG. The truth is simpler... You are wrong, and people explain your mistakes.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: RouletteGhost on Aug 12, 07:36 AM 2017
#Winkel and Notto were right all along - sing along with me: "Trotity trot, trotity trot, the noughts became overtly hot! Merily, merily, merily, merily, the 2s went gently down the stream..." (https://www.rouletteforum.cc/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsimpleicon.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Fmusic-note-5-256x256.png&hash=d90cb20e50de7cca4feff5a19e900211) (https://www.rouletteforum.cc/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsimpleicon.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Fmusic-note-5-256x256.png&hash=d90cb20e50de7cca4feff5a19e900211)


(https://media.giphy.com/media/RwkN3WydjzbIQ/giphy.gif)
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Moxy on Aug 12, 02:24 PM 2017
No baiting - check

No scamming - check

No bravado - check

No selling of system legit or otherwise - check

Endless futile attempts to convince oneself that Turbos method is objective when it's clearly subjective and based on hunches (on what repeats to use prog on) - check

Hopefully he'll make enough for a decent nest egg before it catches up to him if at all.  The rest of you folks, have you even set foot onto an oxygen pumped, cigarette infused atmosphere of the inside of a casino yet or do you just go by what you see on the TV/Internet?
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Turner on Aug 12, 02:58 PM 2017
No baiting - check

No scamming - check

No bravado - check

No selling of system legit or otherwise - check

Endless futile attempts to convince oneself that Turbos method is objective when it's clearly subjective and based on hunches (on what repeats to use prog on) - check

Hopefully he'll make enough for a decent nest egg before it catches up to him if at all.  The rest of you folks, have you even set foot onto an oxygen pumped, cigarette infused atmosphere of the inside of a casino yet or do you just go by what you see on the TV/Internet?
But wait..all is not lost....you have something for us? ( PM only)
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Moxy on Aug 12, 03:02 PM 2017
But wait..all is not lost....you have something for us? ( PM only)

No pm's.  Full transparency: just fascinated by this hobby.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Aug 12, 08:01 PM 2017
Moxy, you've missed the point.

If someone claims to have the hg but cites test results from a rigged game that gives the player a strong edge.... should we highlight their mistake, or ignore it and let people believe baloney?
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: TurboGenius on Aug 13, 09:05 AM 2017
If someone claims to have the hg but cites test results from a rigged game that gives the player a strong edge.... should we highlight their mistake, or ignore it and let people believe baloney?

Define "rigged"
Please contact Parx Online and ask them how their RNG works.
The results have been completely fair compared to actual spins.
I've proven without a doubt that nothing is set up or rigged for a player to either win or lose.
Everyone who is on "your" side - for whatever reason - has said the same thing.
"toy wheel", "rigged site", "unrealistic results", "set up for players to win", "set up for players to lose"
and your complete misunderstanding that bonus $ or log-in $ somehow affects your ranking on the leaderboard, even though I explained it thoroughly.
To be honest - and without the baloney - I'm the only one who's proven anything.
By all means - like I told the others... start a free account and have at it.
Show me a few weeks of consistent top 10 finishes - throw in some #1 finishes - for months....
It should be easy, it's all rigged. You can't lose right ?     
See - that's where the baloney comments really are.. I've shown my results every week, over time -
(others have as well - have you noticed ?)
But it won't matter because of trying to figure out "how", you're too busy with "why".
You're only answer to "why" is to make excuses that will never be verified because the "how" doesn't matter
to you. It's fair - ask them. Play/record your own results even.. whatever you choose.
The only mistake you've managed to "highlight" is that you don't know how it's done - and this is more than enough proof for you that it's "baloney".
Most thinking people see otherwise.
Bago keeps claiming that Celtic is a much better "test" because you can't make multiple accounts, you can't "reload" your balance, there's no bonus points, it's a live wheel and dealer.....
Should I post my balance there ? Do I perform like a monkey so that you can say :
"It's not real money", "You can't do that in a real casino", "The video feed is rigged"... add on 20 others that people will come up with.
There's no point in discussing it really. People have actually figured most of it out - enough of it.
Everyone left behind yelling "RIGGED !" and "FAKE" - don't really change a single thing.
Or keep pointing at "maths" that clearly shows in a random game there will be repeats.
You can't lose a single dollar by not betting on a number that never shows up..
If you've been reading what's been written then you might actually see how it works.
There won't be any "proof" that's acceptable - hence it's a waste of my time to do it over and over.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: 3Nine on Aug 13, 09:46 AM 2017
Hey Turbo,
Have you played at GN online or Betfair NJ? 

Betfair recently licensed the same Live dealer setup from GN.

Good stuff.

Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: RouletteGhost on Aug 13, 09:53 AM 2017

There won't be any "proof" that's acceptable - hence it's a waste of my time to do it over and over.

That's the big forum secret
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: TurboGenius on Aug 13, 10:52 AM 2017
Hey Turbo,
Have you played at GN online or Betfair NJ? 

I have an account at Golden Nugget set up and ready. I wanted to start in July but that didn't happen lol.
It's a shame that there is such a small selection of onlines that are legal in this state to play, but it is what it is.
I sent them emails asking questions but they don't seem too concerned in getting back to me.
It's almost less hassle to drive to Parx in PA, it's not that far for me and so far the results have been good.
I'm a once or twice per month player - there's no need to do more than that really.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: 3Nine on Aug 13, 11:15 AM 2017
I have an account at Golden Nugget set up and ready. I wanted to start in July but that didn't happen lol.
It's a shame that there is such a small selection of onlines that are legal in this state to play, but it is what it is.
I sent them emails asking questions but they don't seem too concerned in getting back to me.
It's almost less hassle to drive to Parx in PA, it's not that far for me and so far the results have been good.
I'm a once or twice per month player - there's no need to do more than that really.

Cool.  Betfair is pretty responsive. I'm a half hour from Parx.  Hour from AC. 



Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: RouletteGhost on Aug 13, 11:16 AM 2017
will be at borgata labor day weekend
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: MumboJumbo on Aug 13, 11:24 AM 2017

Should I post my balance there ? Do I perform like a monkey so that you can say :
"It's not real money",

Dont tell them the holy grail or I will kill you  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Aug 13, 01:42 PM 2017
Turbo i already explained it all. Please check my earlier posts.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: TurboGenius on Aug 13, 02:58 PM 2017
Dont tell them the holy grail or I will kill you

lol
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: TurboGenius on Aug 13, 03:00 PM 2017
will be at borgata labor day weekend

Cool ! Maybe we can meet up and say hi.
Don't tell anyone about how tall and good looking I am though, I don't want that info getting out lol
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: RouletteGhost on Aug 13, 03:09 PM 2017
Lol.

It's a bachelor party. So if you want to get crazy haha

We are gonna shoot some craps (for fun) and definitely hit the roulette wheels
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Moxy on Aug 13, 07:00 PM 2017
Moxy, you've missed the point.

If someone claims to have the hg but cites test results from a rigged game that gives the player a strong edge.... should we highlight their mistake, or ignore it and let people believe baloney?

Strange hobby; seemingly relying on other people to do all the homework and even having the galls to critique when it's not up to par in your mind.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Aug 13, 07:18 PM 2017
Sorry Moxy, you are right. I apologize. It's me who doesn't understand primary school math.

Turbo really has the HG. Parxonline giving Turbo free credits every day just for logging in gives him no edge whatsoever. In fact all casinos give you free money just for walking in the door.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Moxy on Aug 13, 07:27 PM 2017
Sorry Moxy, you are right. I apologize. It's me who doesn't understand primary school math.

Turbo really has the HG. Parxonline giving Turbo free credits every day just for logging in gives him no edge whatsoever. In fact all casinos give you free money just for walking in the door.

Yet you so want to believe 'magic' is indeed real like the everyone else.  The fascinating human psyche.  Frankly, I think he plays subjectively, so not sure if and when the drawdown to end all drawdown will come.  Who knows some intuition are better than others and that's what keeping him afloat.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Aug 13, 07:47 PM 2017
Yet you so want to believe 'magic' is indeed real like the everyone else

Sure I'd love to believe hocus pocus without any substantiating information. But I live in the real world, and need substantiating information.

Frankly, I think he plays subjectively

Uh yeah, I totally agree. Mathematics is entirely a matter of opinion.

Who knows some intuition are better than others and that's what keeping him afloat

I already explained the math of parxonline. That's what is keeping him afloat. If it were intuition, that's not the "beat roulette math with math" system he described.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Aug 13, 07:58 PM 2017
Keep in mind i would like his system to be the hg. But I'm not going to ignore basic math and logic.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Moxy on Aug 13, 08:02 PM 2017
Sure I'd love to believe hocus pocus without any substantiating information. But I live in the real world, and need substantiating information.

Uh yeah, I totally agree. Mathematics is entirely a matter of opinion.

I already explained the math of parxonline. That's what is keeping him afloat. If it were intuition, that's not the "beat roulette math with math" system he described.

One foot in, one foot out, for you huh.  I didn't want to step on his toe hence the 'he plays subjectively' part meaning the math checks out that it still can't be overcome.  Doesn't matter what repeat number, how many numbers, what prog to use...  I'm perplexed you even thought otherwise, otherwise you wouldn't be asking him to test it.  I'm not an idiot.

Strange dichotomy you have here: reasonable yet hoping for 'magic' to strike.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Aug 13, 08:13 PM 2017
Actually I didnt ask him to test it. He started a thread offering clues that were like "proof of concept". It had nothing to do with me. I was just one of the people paying attention. But his clues and information was incorrect. I was one of a few people that highlighted the problems. Then he attempted to prove his system works by testing on parxonline. But the player has a strong positive advantage at parxonline. I explained the math behind it. It has nothing to do with the money not being real.

Im sorry you dont really know what you're talking about. I dont want to argue about it. If you think his method has merit, then learn what you can from him and try to figure out his system.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Moxy on Aug 13, 08:32 PM 2017
Actually I didnt ask him to test it. He started a thread offering clues that were like "proof of concept". It had nothing to do with me. I was just one of the people paying attention. But his clues and information was incorrect. I was one of a few people that highlighted the problems. Then he attempted to prove his system works by testing on parxonline. But the player has a strong positive advantage at parxonline. I explained the math behind it. It has nothing to do with the money not being real.

Im sorry you dont really know what you're talking about. I dont want to argue about it. If you think his method has merit, then learn what you can from him and try to figure out his system.

Knowing not to declare anything on here as to not disrupt the culture (this forum), I'll just say, no thanks, I'm good.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Aug 13, 08:50 PM 2017
Knowing not to declare anything on here as to not disrupt the culture (this forum)

The culture is diversified. A variety of people with different aims and interests with roulette. There is no specific culture.

If you are insinuating you know something I dont know about Turbo's methods, and that revealing it will upset people...
... good for you.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Moxy on Aug 13, 09:13 PM 2017
The culture is diversified. A variety of people with different aims and interests with roulette. There is no specific culture.

If you are insinuating you know something I dont know about Turbo's methods, and that revealing it will upset people...
... good for you.

No, turbos method doesn't check out for me.  You are right from the start, imo.  But I hope his intuition is good enough to carry him.   Digressing, I guess you miss the point.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Aug 13, 09:20 PM 2017
You didn't clearly define the "culture". Anyway doesn't matter. Like I said, there are a variety of different players on the forum. Math guys, system players, APs or whatever.

On the note of Turbo, again I have nothing against the guy. We've disagreed with some things but who cares. Anyway no need to go in circles. There's enough information for anyone to make up their own mind.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: falkor2k15 on Aug 14, 05:32 AM 2017
OK, so I blind-folded myself and put my arms behind my back by removing all parallel streams and placing a ban on High, Low, Dozens, Lines, Streets (etc.), trying to come up with a basic concept or rule that Turbo may be applying to his Numbers-only strategy - based simply on hot/cold/progression. Unfortunately, I failed on all counts, but in the process I did discover some new stats that may or may not help:
(https://s22.postimg.org/8kh17noz5/2nd_Repeat.png)
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: nottophammer on Aug 14, 05:47 AM 2017
Seems like your learning now, just look at reply 36 in strategy help  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: cht on Aug 14, 07:28 AM 2017
OK, so I blind-folded myself and put my arms behind my back by removing all parallel streams and placing a ban on High, Low, Dozens, Lines, Streets (etc.), trying to come up with a basic concept or rule that Turbo may be applying to his Numbers-only strategy - based simply on hot/cold/progression. Unfortunately, I failed on all counts, but in the process I did discover some new stats that may or may not help:
(https://s22.postimg.org/8kh17noz5/2nd_Repeat.png)
Not surprise. This might be helpful for those who follow the trot to play hot/cold/progression. Have fun.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: nottophammer on Aug 14, 07:54 AM 2017
This might be helpful for those who follow the trot
Now we have a math wizard here, is there a TROT or no trot as spins are independent
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: nottophammer on Aug 14, 07:58 AM 2017
Come on someone,lets get this trot malarkey sorted once and for all.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: nottophammer on Aug 14, 08:01 AM 2017
spin 1
spin 2
spin 3 is that a trot or independent spins.
          If independent then how do you build methods to play on 1 spin
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: nottophammer on Aug 14, 08:07 AM 2017
so 5 mins gone
well i'll go for the trot or as Winkel said march, so here we have trot/march of what ?, the starting 37#'s.

So is it possible to learn the Riddle Of The Trot? answer yes
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: falkor2k15 on Aug 14, 08:17 AM 2017
Not surprise. This might be helpful for those who follow the trot to play hot/cold/progression. Have fun.
Thanks, but what does hit payout ratio mean?
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: cht on Aug 14, 08:32 AM 2017
Thanks, but what does hit payout ratio mean?
Example, there're 12unhit numbers to play for hit.

Payout = 35chips paid -12chips played + 1chip returned = 24 net chips

hit payout ratio = Payout / 12chips played  = 2

Interpretation : the win payout will pay for 2 loss bets.

Usage : Example, You might get a high probability bet but the hit payout ratio is low, this makes the bet risky.....
Note the number rises and falls as the pool of numbers contract and expand


         
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: nottophammer on Aug 14, 08:42 AM 2017
Example, there're 12unhit numbers to play for hit.

Payout = 35chips paid -12chips played + 1chip returned = 24 net chips

hit payout ratio = Payout / 12chips played  = 2

Interpretation : the win payout will pay for 2 loss bets.

Usage : Example, You might get a high probability bet but the hit payout ratio is low, this makes the bet risky.....
Note the number rises and falls as the pool of numbers contract and expand


         
And your doing all this in the B+M
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: cht on Aug 14, 08:45 AM 2017
And your doing all this in the B+M
Yup, this style of play monitoring expected probability against hit payout ratio updated to the latest outcome. I have it graphically plotted with alerts played on bacs.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: nottophammer on Aug 14, 08:50 AM 2017
Yup, this style of play monitoring expected probability against hit payout ratio updated to the latest outcome. I have it graphically plotted with alerts played on bacs.
well when i have made the odd 40 mile trip and they see a clipboard they ask what i'm doing so with a laptop god forbid what would happen, thoughts of MrJ, come to mind.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: wiggy on Aug 14, 09:56 AM 2017
As an experiment, I decided to wait for 28 hit numbers and then bet the remaining 9 numbers on a rolling spin by spin basis.

Pretty simple really, when you get one of the 9 sleepers, just cross out the furthest back number on your list and you will always have 28 originals. When you get a repeat, make sure to cross out the furthest back repeat. I was interested in what the W/L registry would look like.

Here it is..... (These numbers were from Table 2 yesterday at Wiesbaden.)

LLLLL (5)
W (1)
L (1)
W (1)
LLLLL (5)
W (1)
L (1)
W (1)
LL (2)
W (1)
LL (2)
WW (2)
LLL (3)
W (1)
L (1)
W (1)
LL (2)
W (1)
LLLLLL (6)
WWW (3)
LL (2)
WWW (3)
LLLL (4)
WW (2)
LLLL (4)
WW (2)
LLLLLLLL (8
WW (2)
LLLLLLL (7)
WWW (3)
LL (2)
W (1)
L (1)
W (1)
LLL (3)
W (1)
L (1)
W (1)
LLLLLLLLLL (10)
WW (2)
L (1)
WW (2)
LL (2)
W (1)
LLLL (4)
W (1)
LLLLL (5)
W (1)
LL (2)
W (1)
LL (2)
W (1)
LLLL (4)
W (1)
LLLLL (5)
W (1)
L (1)
W (1)
LLLLLL (6)

102 losses x 9 = 918

41 wins x 27 = 1107

profit = 189




Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: falkor2k15 on Aug 14, 10:09 AM 2017
Wait till only 9 non-hits then bet the non-hits? For how many spins? Why are you getting 5,6 or 10 losses? What exactly are the rules each set and why would you expect the final profit to be based on edge instead of variance?
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: falkor2k15 on Aug 14, 10:21 AM 2017
I doubt if any of these stats can break the unfair payout odds without breaking the bank:
(https://s24.postimg.org/c3p4z3m9h/2nd_Repeatmax.png)
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: nottophammer on Aug 14, 11:12 AM 2017
As an experiment, I decided to wait for 28 hit numbers and then bet the remaining 9 numbers on a rolling spin by spin basis.

Pretty simple really, when you get one of the 9 sleepers, just cross out the furthest back number on your list and you will always have 28 originals. When you get a repeat, make sure to cross out the furthest back repeat. I was interested in what the W/L registry would look like.

Here it is..... (These numbers were from Table 2 yesterday at Wiesbaden.)

LLLLL (5)
W (1)
L (1)
W (1)
LLLLL (5)
W (1)
L (1)
W (1)
LL (2)
W (1)
LL (2)
WW (2)
LLL (3)
W (1)
L (1)
W (1)
LL (2)
W (1)
LLLLLL (6)
WWW (3)
LL (2)
WWW (3)
LLLL (4)
WW (2)
LLLL (4)
WW (2)
LLLLLLLL (8
WW (2)
LLLLLLL (7)
WWW (3)
LL (2)
W (1)
L (1)
W (1)
LLL (3)
W (1)
L (1)
W (1)
LLLLLLLLLL (10)
WW (2)
L (1)
WW (2)
LL (2)
W (1)
LLLL (4)
W (1)
LLLLL (5)
W (1)
LL (2)
W (1)
LL (2)
W (1)
LLLL (4)
W (1)
LLLLL (5)
W (1)
L (1)
W (1)
LLLLLL (6)

102 losses x 9 = 918

41 wins x 27 = 1107

profit = 189
Looks like betting the remaining 9 is better than any random 9 you'd like to pick, Priyanka posed this once and excepted the example for betting the remaining.
The ? is what is the max spins those 9 could miss, on J247 it's 17 spins and FOBT, rng is 23, 17 spins once in 420 games and 23 once in 650 games
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: wiggy on Aug 14, 11:18 AM 2017
How's it going Notto?

A few years ago when I was looking at this sort of stuff, I noticed how the remaining 9 numbers could come in a flurry until the very last few of the 37. In my example above, waiting for one of the 9 missing to hit and then betting for another to hit (and another etc...) still produced a good profit. That way you avoid any long potential losing strings.

Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: nottophammer on Aug 14, 11:27 AM 2017
Thanks wiggy
flat betting both J247 and rng on the FOBT, are todate in profit, could we say that for a random 9
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: falkor2k15 on Aug 14, 11:35 AM 2017
How's it going Notto?

A few years ago when I was looking at this sort of stuff, I noticed how the remaining 9 numbers could come in a flurry until the very last few of the 37. In my example above, waiting for one of the 9 missing to hit and then betting for another to hit (and another etc...) still produced a good profit. That way you avoid any long potential losing strings.
You mean a cluster? 9 numbers are unlikely to come in pairs. Unfortunately, there's no concepts behind any of these betting decisions.

I think we can disregard most things discussed this thread as propaganda of some sort, based around Hot and Cold. My guess - if Turbo isn't experiencing delusions of grandeur - is that he has some clever variance strategy based around the repeat, or is using positions/distances. Hot/Cold must be secondary - it cannot be the primary concept being utilized here.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: cht on Aug 14, 11:41 AM 2017
You mean a cluster? 9 numbers are unlikely to come in pairs. Unfortunately, there's no concepts behind any of these betting decisions.

I think we can disregard most things discussed this thread as propaganda of some sort, based around Hot and Cold. My guess - if Turbo isn't experiencing delusions of grandeur - is that he has some clever variance strategy based around the repeat, or is using positions/distances. Hot/Cold must be secondary - it cannot be the primary concept being utilized here.
Bingo!
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: falkor2k15 on Aug 14, 11:52 AM 2017
Bingo!
Right. We have identified some dependency, i.e. 3s cannot happen without 2s or 1s, but this doesn't seem to translate to outright edge? If that dependency did equate to edge then the only concepts needed would be the repeat, hot/cold and dependency. So it's like this:
1) Repeat
2) ?
3) ?
4) Hot/Cold, i.e. 0s vs. 1s vs. 2s vs. 3s vs. 4s.
5) Dependency
6) Not Equally-likely (to some extent we have this here too)

The repeat alone is not enough (Non-Random doesn't work out of the box), and the repeat with only hot and cold isn't going to help either, so there must be other concepts in-between:
*Variance avoidance
*Parallel Stream
*Betting on-behalf
*Hedging
*Alternating
et al...
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: nottophammer on Aug 14, 12:15 PM 2017
I can see why Turbo denzie or denzie Turbo gave up  :lol:
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: denzie on Aug 14, 02:41 PM 2017
I can see why Turbo denzie or denzie Turbo gave up  :lol:

Eating popcorn  :girl_to:
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: boyd30 on Oct 07, 11:05 AM 2017
Bringing up this interesting thread again.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: denzie on Oct 07, 11:17 AM 2017
I actually have something else important to do but I did say I would explain it again so here we are.

I'll use another example but you'll have to use your imagination for some parts, don't worry - it will make sense when you're done reading.

We walk up after someone plays a session of 38 spins (0/00 wheel)
Lucky for us we can see every spin that happened in that session.
(I'll just run these off RNG just for the sake of explanation)
13 numbers never appeared
17 numbers showed up once
5 numbers showed up twice
1 number showed up three times
2 numbers showed up four times.

I can simplify this if it helps :
13 numbers never appeared.
25 numbers showed up at least once

8 of those numbers showed up at least twice
3 of those numbers showed up at least three times
2 numbers showed up four times.

But anyway - either way it's the same.
So I look at you and say "If you could go back in time and play these same spins, what would you do ?" and here I have a time machine (how convenient - I told you there's some imagination here)
Now you're going to give me some obvious answers I hope ?
You wouldn't bet a single thing on the 13 numbers that never appeared (why on earth would you ?)
You "could" bet on the numbers that showed up only once - but you would lose on those numbers
exactly at the house edge - so a bit silly of an idea. But that's up to you.
You Certainly would bet on the numbers that showed up twice - those 5 numbers would be a nice profit maker.
You Most Certainly would bet on the numbers that showed up three times ! - very nice profit from those.
And you would be a fool not to bet on the numbers that showed up four times !

So what kind of money would you put on them ?
Well, common sense would tell you that they all make profit regardless - but my time machine isn't going to be around in the future so you're going to have to make some choices.
You'll bet a minimal amount on the numbers that had 1 show
You'd bet more on the 2 show numbers
You'd bet even more on the 3 show numbers and
You'd bet a LOT on the 4 show numbers... This is a aggressive progression
and you're not worried because with the time machine you can't lose.

So all of this makes sense - and the naysayers can say "well we don't have a time machine".
And guess what - you don't need one.
I made this clear in other posts - those numbers that appeared 4 times were numbers that had appeared 3 times.
Those numbers that appeared 3 times were only numbers that appeared 2 times
and the numbers that appeared 2 times were only numbers that appeared once.
All of the numbers that never appeared ? They never appeared.......
Use the same logic on the next 38 spins that you don't know.... correct ? It's not rocket science.
You can say "There's no way of knowing the next spin..." and that is correct.
You can say "There's no way of knowing that a number with 1 show is going to be a number that has 2 or more shows" - and that is correct. BUT - the only numbers that will have 2 shows are numbers that appeared once. See ?
Steve rightly said that systems are useless.. "If accuracy of bet selection doesn't increase, no progression can consistently win."
Now your accuracy just increased (and greatly).
As a matter of fact - by NOT betting on numbers that never show you are no longer playing/winning/losing at the house edge.
You can test this - it's not hard to do. I did it at the other forum as an example.
Play every number on the table for 38 spins - you'll end at the house edge.
Play every number on the table but only once it shows - you won't end at the house edge.
Play every number on the table but only after it shows twice - again - you won't win/lose at the house edge.
You can continue this on for quite a while.
The "house edge" on a 38 pocket wheel is 2 numbers.
If you play every number on the table for 38 spins, you will be down 2 units - this is the house edge.
However - if you play every number Except for the last 2 numbers that end up appearing (this could be 150 spins or more ? it varies) You never play at the house edge at all.
For those who want to test things - there's where to begin.
The aggressive progression not only covers the numbers that appear "at average" if you choose to play them - it boosts your profits beyond flat betting and does not involve chasing a loss or digging out of a hole - it's not a negative progression, it's a positive one based on wins.

Thanks for reading, I can only hope this sinks in - and if not then you're on your own.

Start here  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: boyd30 on Oct 07, 11:50 AM 2017
Do you need to bet on all repeaters or is it enough to bet on the most repeated? It can be many numbers to bet on.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: denzie on Oct 07, 12:01 PM 2017
Do you need to bet on all repeaters or is it enough to bet on the most repeated? It can be many numbers to bet on.

You answered your own question  ;)
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: ignatus on Oct 07, 12:10 PM 2017
Do you need to bet on all repeaters

Tried this with a positive progression, and it doesn't work.

The big secret is HOW many hotnumbers to bet, and i think Mr.J is somewhere close to an answer to that 1-4 hotnumbers is the only way i can see this work, at all...
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: nottophammer on Oct 07, 12:14 PM 2017
Boyd
Look here https://www.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=19225.0
Page 17 reply sep02 11:48  just away
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: ignatus on Oct 07, 12:22 PM 2017
20 pages , no, can't read that...

i've already tried and sometimes it works, sometimes it won't work, FLATBET 1-3 hotnumbers https://www.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=19465.0
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: denzie on Oct 07, 12:56 PM 2017
20 pages , no, can't read that...

i've already tried and sometimes it works, sometimes it won't work, FLATBET 1-3 hotnumbers https://www.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=19465.0

Newsflash. ...This Just in.....Testing 10 sessions is nothing and sure as hell not enough to calculate a winrate %
 ::)
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: ignatus on Oct 07, 01:01 PM 2017
Newsflash. ...This Just in.....Testing 10 sessions is nothing and sure as hell not enough to calcula

What do you expect? Shall i invent the system, and manually play it for 100 sessions? (That won't happen). I usually do 10-20 test-sessions before i get bored with it and move on to something else. What about you testing it for yourself instead of complaining?....(IF you like it, that is) now this was about "hotnumbers" ........that was what this thread was about.
I HAD SUCCESS FLATBETTING 3 HOTNUMBERS... show me your "secret system" then?
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: denzie on Oct 07, 01:07 PM 2017
What do you expect? Shall i invent the system, and manually play it for 100 sessions? (That won't happen). I usually do 10-20 test-sessions before i get bored with it and move on to something else. What about you testing it for yourself instead of complaining?....(IF you like it, that is) now this was about "hotnumbers" ........that was what this thread was about.
I HAD SUCCESS FLATBETTING 3 HOTNUMBERS... show me your "secret system" then?

I did today.
 ::)
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: ignatus on Oct 07, 01:12 PM 2017
I did today.

And what was your results then? I guess not good since you're complaining.... you said it yourself, afew sessions won't show a real reslut, usually 10-20 sessions CAN tell something, (that's why i usually do 20 sessions BECAUSE a failing system won't make it through 20 sessions, That i know...)
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Oct 07, 01:19 PM 2017
Have you properly tested to see if hot numbers are more likely to spins anytime soon?

Its one of the oldest fallacies. Hot numbers spin equally as much next as cold numbers, unless there's bias. There's no doubt. It has been tested countless times. Why is anyone still wasting time on it?

Touch bet terminals usually tell you the hot numbers because it's useless information that keeps players losing.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: denzie on Oct 07, 01:30 PM 2017
Have you properly tested to see if hot numbers are more likely to spins anytime soon?

Its one of the oldest fallacies. Hot numbers spin equally as much next as cold numbers, unless there's bias. There's no doubt. It has been tested countless times. Why is anyone still wasting time on it?

Touch bet terminals usually tell you the hot numbers because it's useless information that keeps players losing.

Steve of course any number can appear next. No doubt about it. But there are the statistics which happen almost every session. It is what it is.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: denzie on Oct 07, 01:32 PM 2017
And what was your results then? I guess not good since you're complaining.... you said it yourself, afew sessions won't show a real reslut, usually 10-20 sessions CAN tell something, (that's why i usually do 20 sessions BECAUSE a failing system won't make it through 20 sessions, That i know...)

The vb way can't lose on the long run!  Unless it's done wrong. It is what it is!

And maaaaaaany losing systems can pass 20 sessions. Fact !
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: ignatus on Oct 07, 01:38 PM 2017
Its one of the oldest fallacies. Hot numbers spin equally as much next as cold numbers

Yes, it may be so? But then why i had success with ((3 numbers)) ? Because flatbetting a static bet of 3 numbers usually give a short term positive result.

It all depends on ((how many numbers you bet)), Mr.J was right about that 2-4 numbers usually give a positive result, short term,

About hotnumbers having a higher hitrate than cold numbers? idk, atleast i imagine it is so, or i want to believe in it? It's all about the fun-factor also? Roulette is supposed to be a fun game, and it is! :) That's why i never get bored with it,..
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: ignatus on Oct 07, 01:41 PM 2017
And maaaaaaany losing systems can pass 20 sessions. Fact !

No, a losing system *WON'T* pass 20 sessions, that i know from experience, and i've tested 100eds of systems that way...
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: boyd30 on Oct 07, 03:43 PM 2017
You answered your own question  ;)

Ok, think I got it...more testing needed
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: boyd30 on Oct 07, 03:45 PM 2017
Boyd
Look here https://www.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=19225.0
Page 17 reply sep02 11:48  just away

Sorry, Notto...your pictures difficult to understand...l'll have to take a closer look...
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: denzie on Oct 07, 04:26 PM 2017
No, a losing system *WON'T* pass 20 sessions, that i know from experience, and i've tested 100eds of systems that way...
Well. ...Don't know what to say.....If you think so I'll leave you to it. I tried.   :-X
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: MoneyT101 on Oct 07, 05:14 PM 2017

Its one of the oldest fallacies. Hot numbers spin equally as much next as cold numbers, unless there's bias. There's no doubt. It has been tested countless times. Why is anyone still wasting time on it?

Touch bet terminals usually tell you the hot numbers because it's useless information that keeps players losing.

There's a difference between hot numbers in general and hot numbers in a cycle

The way that Denzie plays, it's considered short term not long term hot numbers that become cold.

He plays what's hot in that particular cycle of spins.

Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: denzie on Oct 07, 05:57 PM 2017
There's a difference between hot numbers in general and hot numbers in a cycle

The way that Denzie plays, it's considered short term not long term hot numbers that become cold.

He plays what's hot in that particular cycle of spins.
Thank you!   :thumbsup:
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Oct 07, 08:58 PM 2017
Define "hot numbers in a cycle".

Hot numbers in any form, besides bias, is nonsense. I'd be happy to be proven wrong.

Again it has been tested exhaustively. No sequence of numbers is any more likely than another without the variables making it so. Players who track hot numbers tend to not track variables at all, or track the wrong thing. So they have no idea of the cause and effect, and if hot numbers are just normal expectation.  Its playing blind.

If anyone wants to argue this, don't just grumble. Show me data.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: cht on Oct 07, 10:54 PM 2017
I actually have something else important to do but I did say I would explain it again so here we are.

I'll use another example but you'll have to use your imagination for some parts, don't worry - it will make sense when you're done reading.

We walk up after someone plays a session of 38 spins (0/00 wheel)
Lucky for us we can see every spin that happened in that session.
(I'll just run these off RNG just for the sake of explanation)
13 numbers never appeared
17 numbers showed up once
5 numbers showed up twice
1 number showed up three times
2 numbers showed up four times.

I can simplify this if it helps :
13 numbers never appeared.
25 numbers showed up at least once

8 of those numbers showed up at least twice
3 of those numbers showed up at least three times
2 numbers showed up four times.

But anyway - either way it's the same.
So I look at you and say "If you could go back in time and play these same spins, what would you do ?" and here I have a time machine (how convenient - I told you there's some imagination here)
Now you're going to give me some obvious answers I hope ?
You wouldn't bet a single thing on the 13 numbers that never appeared (why on earth would you ?)
You "could" bet on the numbers that showed up only once - but you would lose on those numbers
exactly at the house edge - so a bit silly of an idea. But that's up to you.
You Certainly would bet on the numbers that showed up twice - those 5 numbers would be a nice profit maker.
You Most Certainly would bet on the numbers that showed up three times ! - very nice profit from those.
And you would be a fool not to bet on the numbers that showed up four times !


So what kind of money would you put on them ?
Well, common sense would tell you that they all make profit regardless - but my time machine isn't going to be around in the future so you're going to have to make some choices.
You'll bet a minimal amount on the numbers that had 1 show
You'd bet more on the 2 show numbers
You'd bet even more on the 3 show numbers and
You'd bet a LOT on the 4 show numbers... This is a aggressive progression

and you're not worried because with the time machine you can't lose.

So all of this makes sense - and the naysayers can say "well we don't have a time machine".
And guess what - you don't need one.
I made this clear in other posts - those numbers that appeared 4 times were numbers that had appeared 3 times.
Those numbers that appeared 3 times were only numbers that appeared 2 times
and the numbers that appeared 2 times were only numbers that appeared once.
All of the numbers that never appeared ? They never appeared.......
Use the same logic on the next 38 spins that you don't know.... correct ? It's not rocket science.
You can say "There's no way of knowing the next spin..." and that is correct.
You can say "There's no way of knowing that a number with 1 show is going to be a number that has 2 or more shows" - and that is correct. BUT - the only numbers that will have 2 shows are numbers that appeared once. See ?
Steve rightly said that systems are useless.. "If accuracy of bet selection doesn't increase, no progression can consistently win."
Now your accuracy just increased (and greatly).
As a matter of fact - by NOT betting on numbers that never show you are no longer playing/winning/losing at the house edge.
You can test this - it's not hard to do. I did it at the other forum as an example.
Play every number on the table for 38 spins - you'll end at the house edge.
Play every number on the table but only once it shows - you won't end at the house edge.
Play every number on the table but only after it shows twice - again - you won't win/lose at the house edge.
You can continue this on for quite a while.
The "house edge" on a 38 pocket wheel is 2 numbers.
If you play every number on the table for 38 spins, you will be down 2 units - this is the house edge.
However - if you play every number Except for the last 2 numbers that end up appearing (this could be 150 spins or more ? it varies) You never play at the house edge at all.
For those who want to test things - there's where to begin.
The aggressive progression not only covers the numbers that appear "at average" if you choose to play them - it boosts your profits beyond flat betting and does not involve chasing a loss or digging out of a hole - it's not a negative progression, it's a positive one based on wins.

Thanks for reading, I can only hope this sinks in - and if not then you're on your own.
Has anyone properly tested this ?
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Oct 07, 11:10 PM 2017
Yes and it doesn't work. Its Just a typical losing approach repackaged.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: cht on Oct 07, 11:21 PM 2017
Yes and it doesn't work. Its Just a typical losing approach repackaged.
Despite TG's claim I don't see how it can work. Test proves it doesn't work. If anyone claims otherwise, show us the proof.

"Hot" and "cold" numbers that casinos help punters track this "streak" is a bait for noobs to lose.

Wake up people!
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: cht on Oct 07, 11:50 PM 2017
Despite TG's claim I don't see how it can work. Test proves it doesn't work. If anyone claims otherwise, show us the proof.

"Hot" and "cold" numbers that casinos help punters track this "streak" is a bait for noobs to lose.

Wake up people!
Fool me once shame on you.
Fool me twice shame on me.
Fool me thrice you're a jerk and
I'm a dickhead fool !
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: nottophammer on Oct 08, 04:15 AM 2017
Boyd
(https://www.rouletteforum.cc/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pichost.org%2Fimages%2F2017%2F10%2F08%2Ftemp_715322.png&hash=474a060a347d8a45d02a56959520f3fd) (http://www.pichost.org/image/7kz1)
some say start to bet staraight away, you make this decision.
Bet spin 1,#18 at spin 8 win the 7#'s will have cost at1 units 28, so +8, if like shanks you now walk,reset or what ever your game play is.
If it was to carry on you'd bet #18 at 5 units like TG, me steady old 2 units. So you'd bet the hot #18 and the hot #31and win hot#18.

There you go old f****** useless  steve airball game as well so is it rigged?

I'll post your reply Steve, Notto you're a dickhead, typical reply from useless blatant liar, bet thats got your feathers rattled, jizz or finger coming, oh am i baiting, get Turner on the case LOL
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: boyd30 on Oct 08, 04:26 AM 2017
Boyd
(https://www.rouletteforum.cc/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pichost.org%2Fimages%2F2017%2F10%2F08%2Ftemp_715322.png&hash=474a060a347d8a45d02a56959520f3fd) (http://www.pichost.org/image/7kz1)
some say start to bet staraight away, you make this decision.
Bet spin 1,#18 at spin 8 win the 7#'s will have cost at1 units 28, so +8, if like shanks you now walk,reset or what ever your game play is.
If it was to carry on you'd bet #18 at 5 units like TG, me steady old 2 units. So you'd bet the hot #18 and the hot #31and win hot#18.

There you go old f****** useless  steve airball game as well so is it rigged?

I'll post your reply Steve, Notto you're a dickhead, typical reply from useless blatant liar, bet thats got your feathers rattled, jizz or finger coming, oh am i baiting, get Turner on the case LOL

Thank you Notto! Got it little better now after been studying it. I will test it.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Turner on Oct 08, 04:42 AM 2017
I'll post your reply Steve, Notto you're a dickhead, typical reply from useless blatant liar, bet thats got your feathers rattled, jizz or finger coming, oh am i baiting, get Turner on the case LOL
Whos rattled your cage?
It cant be the Hammers losing (again)...its an international break lol
Posting when drunk?
Im going for posting when drunk :thumbsup:
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: boyd30 on Oct 08, 04:50 AM 2017
Just a short test with hotnumbers  :thumbsup:

Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: denzie on Oct 08, 05:00 AM 2017
Define "hot numbers in a cycle".

Hot numbers in any form, besides bias, is nonsense. I'd be happy to be proven wrong.

Again it has been tested exhaustively. No sequence of numbers is any more likely than another without the variables making it so. Players who track hot numbers tend to not track variables at all, or track the wrong thing. So they have no idea of the cause and effect, and if hot numbers are just normal expectation.  Its playing blind.

If anyone wants to argue this, don't just grumble. Show me data.

We all know it's cause and effect. Like I said it ain't the holy ghost who picks the numbers. Geez.

Data? You want data ? Go to wiesbaden and see if you can find any day where with 37 different numbers come in 37 spins. Or have anyone ever saw it happening?  I didn't. Not even in rx. Yes I know Steve. ...Let It run for trazillion spins and it will come. Yup I agree. We probably see 37 x red in a row too. But that doesn't change the fact we can win. There's a way. And no its not just betting more and more each time one repeats. But one always will repeat. So if you can't win from that your an........

I'll tell you this steveypoo....You might not agree but that's fine. Playing hotties is a damn good strategy. It's actually so good you can have a loooooot of winning sessions in a row. Now those who have some brains know how to roll in that cash this way. A lot of cash. And those same people know it can be done with a low starting br. If you really tested every way ... You should know that.

And I'm not even talking about putting vb in the mix.

Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: nottophammer on Oct 08, 05:19 AM 2017
with no idea what i'm doing just been on MPR gone from 4951 units to 5370 in 60 spins

even told KIm Jueng where to bet
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Oct 08, 06:44 AM 2017
Go to wiesbaden and see if you can find any day where with 37 different numbers come in 37 spins

Thats classic fallacy. Test enough spins, and you'll find the sequence of spins 1,2,3,4,5 happens as often as 32,14,8,0,10.

Its the same case with 37 different numbers in 37 spins, or #1 repeating for 37 spins. You betting that 37 unique numbers wont spin just wont work.

Its not my opinion denzie. Just test enough spins and see for yourself. Use the free software I provided and you can test billions of spins. Use other software if you think maybe the software is rigged.

Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Oct 08, 06:48 AM 2017
Im sorry Denzie but you're really stuck in classic fallacy. I havent made a mistake. You're just not understanding it.

You think a sequence of spins that makes sense to you means anything to a wheel and ball.

Probably nobody has seen 37 unique numbers in 37 spins. And if i chose any other sequence of 37 numbers, chances are equally likely nobody has seen that either. Again its not my opinion. Just test for yourself.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: 3Nine on Oct 08, 07:22 AM 2017
Hey Denzie, I wonder if the same applies to created sets? Hmm.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Oct 08, 07:43 AM 2017
with no idea what i'm doing just been on MPR gone from 4951 units to 5370 in 60 spins

even told KIm Jueng where to bet

I won much more (real money) using a dozens system with progression. I used the same system for a year and did very well, until losing almost all winnings. Before that I wouldnt have let anyone tell me my system was crap.

No matter how well we think we know something, eventually we learn we actually knew nothing. It repeats a lot in life before we have what can be called "good understanding". But there are still levels of ignorance, always. But at some point, within reason, you need to decide what to believe. You cant sit on the fence forever. After you can honestly say you took an unbiased look at all sides of arguments. This approach can waste time, but at least its the most assured way of knowing the truth. Like the flat earth crap.... i took it seriously enough to give it an unbiased look, and couldnt find even a single viable argument from flat earthers (just really bad logic and understanding).

In any area ill listen to someone with likely more experience. But first and foremost, i try not to believe anything without reasonable personal experience.

One things for sure... pigheaded arrogance makes you ignorant. And not knowing the truth is just screwing yourself. So do proper research before proclaiming the truth, and always properly consider other peoples findings and why they have certain beliefs. If they dont have substantiating information, its worthless speculation.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: nottophammer on Oct 08, 08:16 AM 2017
I won much more (real money) using a dozens system with progression. I used the same system for a year and did very well, until losing almost all winnings. Before that I wouldnt have let anyone tell me my system was crap.

No matter how well we think we know something, eventually we learn we actually knew nothing. It repeats a lot in life before we have what can be called "good understanding". But there are still levels of ignorance, always. But at some point, within reason, you need to decide what to believe. You cant sit on the fence forever. After you can honestly say you took an unbiased look at all sides of arguments. This approach can waste time, but at least its the most assured way of knowing the truth. Like the flat earth crap.... i took it seriously enough to give it an unbiased look, and couldnt find even a single viable argument from flat earthers (just really bad logic and understanding).

In any area ill listen to someone with likely more experience. But first and foremost, i try not to believe anything without reasonable personal experience.

One things for sure... pigheaded arrogance makes you ignorant. And not knowing the truth is just screwing yourself. So do proper research before proclaiming the truth, and always properly consider other peoples findings and why they have certain beliefs. If they dont have substantiating information, its worthless speculation.
:yawn:  zzzzzzzzzzz
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Taotie on Oct 08, 08:19 AM 2017
I won much more (real money) using a dozens system with progression. I used the same system for a year and did very well, until losing almost all winnings. Before that I wouldnt have let anyone tell me my system was crap.

I've known lots of guys like that, girls too.

No matter how well we think we know something, eventually we learn we actually knew nothing.

That's a bit harsh. Rightly or wrongly people come to their own understandings about what they know and it's usually not nothing.

In any area ill listen to someone with likely more experience. But first and foremost, i try not to believe anything without reasonable personal experience.

Time to pull your head out your arse then.

One things for sure... pigheaded arrogance makes you ignorant. And not knowing the truth is just screwing yourself. So do proper research before proclaiming the truth, and always properly consider other peoples findings and why they have certain beliefs. If they dont have substantiating information, its worthless speculation.

I'd say that's least sure. I've known many knowledgeable and sophisticated individuals who are arrogant. You yourself display a lot of arrogance in your postings.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Noreilles on Oct 08, 09:00 AM 2017
Thats classic fallacy. Test enough spins, and you'll find the sequence of spins 1,2,3,4,5 happens as often as 32,14,8,0,10.

Its the same case with 37 different numbers in 37 spins, or #1 repeating for 37 spins. You betting that 37 unique numbers wont spin just wont work.

Its not my opinion denzie. Just test enough spins and see for yourself. Use the free software I provided and you can test billions of spins. Use other software if you think maybe the software is rigged.

With all due respect Steve, he never said it would NEVER happen (although,,, a quick internet search seems to indicate it never happened once so far in the history of roulette)... his point was that by the time it happens, you will have WON so much money that you just wont care... that's what playing repeaters helps you achieve: winning more than you lose long term.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: denzie on Oct 08, 09:43 AM 2017
With all due respect Steve, he never said it would NEVER happen (although,,, a quick internet search seems to indicate it never happened once so far in the history of roulette)... his point was that by the time it happens, you will have WON so much money that you just wont care... that's what playing repeaters helps you achieve: winning more than you lose long term.

Thx  :thumbsup:

And long term. .... What Is long term ? For me it's as long as I live/play. Which won't be billion of spins.

And about those sessions that could give us no repeaters.... i dont use a million $ br. That session most probably end with a loss. But only a loss of my session br. I don't use a 15 step progression that requires 100k to play it.

I do agree with all cause and effect stuff. It's pure physics. I do agree with enough spins all possible combinations will occur. But I'm damn sure they won't occur every day or every month or not even every year. In fact they spread out far enough to make some money in between.

Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: cht on Oct 08, 10:17 AM 2017
I actually have something else important to do but I did say I would explain it again so here we are.

I'll use another example but you'll have to use your imagination for some parts, don't worry - it will make sense when you're done reading.

We walk up after someone plays a session of 38 spins (0/00 wheel)
Lucky for us we can see every spin that happened in that session.
(I'll just run these off RNG just for the sake of explanation)
13 numbers never appeared
17 numbers showed up once
5 numbers showed up twice
1 number showed up three times
2 numbers showed up four times.

I can simplify this if it helps :
13 numbers never appeared.
25 numbers showed up at least once

8 of those numbers showed up at least twice
3 of those numbers showed up at least three times
2 numbers showed up four times.

But anyway - either way it's the same.
So I look at you and say "If you could go back in time and play these same spins, what would you do ?" and here I have a time machine (how convenient - I told you there's some imagination here)
Now you're going to give me some obvious answers I hope ?
You wouldn't bet a single thing on the 13 numbers that never appeared (why on earth would you ?)
You "could" bet on the numbers that showed up only once - but you would lose on those numbers
exactly at the house edge - so a bit silly of an idea. But that's up to you.
You Certainly would bet on the numbers that showed up twice - those 5 numbers would be a nice profit maker.
You Most Certainly would bet on the numbers that showed up three times ! - very nice profit from those.
And you would be a fool not to bet on the numbers that showed up four times !


So what kind of money would you put on them ?
Well, common sense would tell you that they all make profit regardless - but my time machine isn't going to be around in the future so you're going to have to make some choices.
You'll bet a minimal amount on the numbers that had 1 show
You'd bet more on the 2 show numbers
You'd bet even more on the 3 show numbers and
You'd bet a LOT on the 4 show numbers... This is a aggressive progression

and you're not worried because with the time machine you can't lose.

So all of this makes sense - and the naysayers can say "well we don't have a time machine".
And guess what - you don't need one.
I made this clear in other posts - those numbers that appeared 4 times were numbers that had appeared 3 times.
Those numbers that appeared 3 times were only numbers that appeared 2 times
and the numbers that appeared 2 times were only numbers that appeared once.
All of the numbers that never appeared ? They never appeared.......
Use the same logic on the next 38 spins that you don't know.... correct ? It's not rocket science.
You can say "There's no way of knowing the next spin..." and that is correct.
You can say "There's no way of knowing that a number with 1 show is going to be a number that has 2 or more shows" - and that is correct. BUT - the only numbers that will have 2 shows are numbers that appeared once. See ?
Steve rightly said that systems are useless.. "If accuracy of bet selection doesn't increase, no progression can consistently win."
Now your accuracy just increased (and greatly).
As a matter of fact - by NOT betting on numbers that never show you are no longer playing/winning/losing at the house edge.
You can test this - it's not hard to do. I did it at the other forum as an example.
Play every number on the table for 38 spins - you'll end at the house edge.
Play every number on the table but only once it shows - you won't end at the house edge.
Play every number on the table but only after it shows twice - again - you won't win/lose at the house edge.
You can continue this on for quite a while.
The "house edge" on a 38 pocket wheel is 2 numbers.
If you play every number on the table for 38 spins, you will be down 2 units - this is the house edge.
However - if you play every number Except for the last 2 numbers that end up appearing (this could be 150 spins or more ? it varies) You never play at the house edge at all.
For those who want to test things - there's where to begin.
The aggressive progression not only covers the numbers that appear "at average" if you choose to play them - it boosts your profits beyond flat betting and does not involve chasing a loss or digging out of a hole - it's not a negative progression, it's a positive one based on wins.

Thanks for reading, I can only hope this sinks in - and if not then you're on your own.

that's what playing repeaters helps you achieve: winning more than you lose long term.
I checked this on the excel sheet but I can't find it to win more than lose on single 0 for 37spins.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: denzie on Oct 08, 10:38 AM 2017
I checked this on the excel sheet but I can't find it to win more than lose on single 0 for 37spins.
Of course you can't. Why stop at 37 spins? 

That explanation is just basics. Why not go till that 4th hit ? Why not put mm on it ? And most importantly...Why Bet them all ?

 :thumbsup:
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: maestro on Oct 08, 10:43 AM 2017
Quote
I'd say that's least sure. I've known many knowledgeable and sophisticated individuals who are arrogant. You yourself display a lot of arrogance in your postings.


i like this one :xd: :xd: :xd:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5y_KJAg8bHI
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: cht on Oct 08, 10:45 AM 2017
Of course you can't. Why stop at 37 spins? 

That explanation is just basics. Why not go till that 4th hit ? Why not put mm on it ? And most importantly...Why Bet them all ?

 :thumbsup:
Why not throw in VB ?  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Lucky7Red on Oct 08, 12:06 PM 2017
Denzie way, Denzie way, Denzie all the way  ♫  ♪ ♫♪♫♪♪♪
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Oct 08, 06:21 PM 2017
I've known lots of guys like that, girls too.

That's a bit harsh. Rightly or wrongly people come to their own understandings about what they know and it's usually not nothing.

Time to pull your head out your arse then.

I'd say that's least sure. I've known many knowledgeable and sophisticated individuals who are arrogant. You yourself display a lot of arrogance in your postings.

Taotie, I think you've misunderstood me. I'm saying I try to avoid having a firm opinion on something until I know more information.

I've known many knowledgeable and sophisticated individuals who are arrogant. You yourself display a lot of arrogance in your postings.

Arrogance inevitably contributes to ignorance, because it makes you discount other possibilities because you think you know you are right. I was not saying knowledgeable people cannot be arrogant. Compare a humble an open person vs an arrogant and stubborn one. Who would likely be more receptive to the truth?

I understand sometimes I may appear arrogant, but it's confused with something else. Say an obviously inexperienced player says they win with something like the martingale, and I explain why the winnings are not sustainable. Then they take offense and accuse me of trying to censor the HG. I'm confident that the player really has no idea what they're talking about, and that may come across as arrogance. I know roulette very well. And I know the typical stages of misunderstandings because I've been through them myself.

I dont believe it's arrogant to remain staunch when someone tries to tell you 1+1=3

his point was that by the time it happens, you will have WON so much money that you just wont care... that's what playing repeaters helps you achieve: winning more than you lose long term.

That's still fallacy. He does not appear to understand the sequence of 37 numbers in 37 spins happens as often as any other sequence. None of that has any bearing on the odds of the next spin. No odds change means nothing has changed.

I do agree with enough spins all possible combinations will occur. But I'm damn sure they won't occur every day or every month or not even every year. In fact they spread out far enough to make some money in between.

How can you "make money in between"? What matters is the odds of the next spin, and the disproportionate payout. Can you give a specific example of the odds changing?

If the odds dont change, and they are still 1 in 37, then how has anything changed?

Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: MoneyT101 on Oct 08, 11:56 PM 2017
How can you "make money in between"? What matters is the odds of the next spin, and the disproportionate payout. Can you give a specific example of the odds changing?

If the odds dont change, and they are still 1 in 37, then how has anything changed?

The thing is the stats of thousands of spin show that all 37 numbers wont show up and i think the most that have shown up is 31..... which means there were 6 repeats.  just one of those repeats going to 3 or 4 repeats within that 37 spin cycle would have made a possible profit.

Denzie has created a system around this information.  Yes he will lose because anything can happen but based on the math that we cant change!

roulette cant give you all 37 numbers back to back to back
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Oct 10, 01:23 AM 2017
roulette cant give you all 37 numbers back to back to back

That's like saying you'll never see this sequence:

26
15
10
18
33
30
27
15
26
14
11
23
2
23
12
31
15
8
2
35
35
9
36
12
31
11
5
31
22
27
30
26
30
26
0
18
27

If you see enough spins, you'll find it happens just as often as 37 numbers back to back.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: maestro on Oct 10, 01:37 AM 2017
Quote
That's like saying you'll never see this sequence:

no it is not...cannot have 37 numbers with no repeat<else anyone can beat the game>
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: nottophammer on Oct 10, 02:59 AM 2017
no it is not...cannot have 37 numbers with no repeat<else anyone can beat the game>
yes M be KTF all the way, but thick.slick Steve dont see this
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Oct 10, 05:53 AM 2017
Ok notto and maestro, and anyone who agrees with them...  I can very easily prove you're wrong. If i do, then you agree to run naked up and down your street. Twice. Deal? Lets see whos thick notto.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Oct 10, 06:02 AM 2017
Another thing. You can both apologize to me, if i demonstrate you're dead wrong.

If im wrong, then well you name it  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: maestro on Oct 10, 06:36 AM 2017
Quote
then you agree to run naked up and down your street. Twice. Deal? Lets see whos thick notto.


i already done that twice... :xd: :xd: :xd:
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: MoneyT101 on Oct 10, 06:48 AM 2017
Another thing. You can both apologize to me, if i demonstrate you're dead wrong.

If im wrong, then well you name it  :thumbsup:

I have been so busy I haven't had time to look.  But I think I remember someone ran a simulation at the forum.

I'm not saying a game cannot happen.  But very rare to happen.   If you think about it; it's based on math

After a certain amount of numbers the odds shift from one side to the other.(repeat vs unique)....So the possibility for a repeat increases.  Yes any 37 number are possible


But if you have a list and your tracking.  37 spots as the numbers come out.  Your chances of getting a repeat before 24 unique numbers are high because a shift happens

So it's not that a rare game won't happen.  It's just if you have a good method  based on the idea and the math behind it.  You should come out a ahead

Somehow turbo and denzie created a method and it's not perfect but they win.  Turbo proved it using parx!  It's not easy to get into the top 10 even if you have a large bankroll.  You still have to win!
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: RouletteGhost on Oct 10, 07:50 AM 2017
yes M be KTF all the way, but thick.slick Steve dont see this

Ok ok ok

Notto I have one question for you does KTF (+1 -1 on the 25 Unhit) work for you and has it consistently worked for you over the past year?

Please a yes or no will suffice
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Oct 10, 08:09 AM 2017
Iits still not being understood fully. Its exactly as rare as any other combination of numbers.

And parx is a terrible place to test. I explained the parx math. Unfortunately I havent seen anythung to indicate turbo has anything that works. But what we do have is his claims that show contradictions he isnt even aware of, and typical musunderstandings. I dont have anything against him but the whole parx thing was very misleading. Check my posts about parx math.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Oct 10, 08:19 AM 2017
ps how many people here play say 2000 spins per year? Its about an hour in the casino, every week.

Of those who said yes, how many of you have won over 2000 spins? How many have lost? It would be roughly the same proprtion of players with a 1+ win rate on MPR.

How many times can you win with random bets and progression in 2000 spins? Test on rx.

My point is most players will have lost. A few will have won. So for the average active player, even a year of profitable play is NOT proof your system works. Read www.roulettephysics.com/roulette-strategy/ and the part about the illusion of having a winning system.

I dont mean to be a negative nancy. Im just trying to help. But Id rather sound negative and be honest, instead of smiling and lying.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: cht on Oct 10, 09:12 AM 2017
If the strategy does not win on typical play schedule at least 100% of investment every week, I won't waste time with it - that's my yardstick.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Blue_Angel on Oct 11, 10:13 AM 2017
Looks like betting the remaining 9 is better than any random 9 you'd like to pick, Priyanka posed this once and excepted the example for betting the remaining.
The ? is what is the max spins those 9 could miss, on J247 it's 17 spins and FOBT, rng is 23, 17 spins once in 420 games and 23 once in 650 games

For 9 numbers is: 666/9= 74 spins, that's for any 9 numbers.
The same virtual limit applies for any total, for example:
666/1= 666
666/2= 333
666/3= 222
666/4= 167
666/5= 134
666/6= 111
etc...
But you could accumulate different totals instead of all numbers having the same delay, for example:
Looking on the list with most delayed numbers there are number 1 is absent for 130 spins, number 6 is absent for 117 spins, number 19 is missing for 107 spins, number 23 missing for 96 spins, number 28 sleeping for 89 spins, number 30 sleeping for 88 spins and number 32 sleeps for 83 spins, therefore we have a group of 7 numbers which their accumulated absence is:

130+117+107+96+89+88+83= 710 which exceeds 666, thus that 7 numbers are ready to bet but for how long is the real question 666 in to square = 1332-710 = 622 and its square root is 24.93 which means within the next 25 spins one of those 7 numbers will awake.

You can figure out the progression yourself, it depends from the total of numbers and the total of spins.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: TurboGenius on Oct 15, 08:49 PM 2017
Looking on the list with most delayed numbers there are number 1 is absent for 130 spins, number 6 is absent for 117 spins, number 19 is missing for 107 spins, number 23 missing for 96 spins, number 28 sleeping for 89 spins, number 30 sleeping for 88 spins and number 32 sleeps for 83 spins, therefore we have a group of 7 numbers which their accumulated absence is:

130+117+107+96+89+88+83= 710 which exceeds 666, thus that 7 numbers are ready to bet but for how long is the real question 666 in to square = 1332-710 = 622 and its square root is 24.93 which means within the next 25 spins one of those 7 numbers will awake.

You are over complicating it.
The "answer" doesn't require all these calculations.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: denzie on Oct 17, 03:56 PM 2017
You are over complicating it.
The "answer" doesn't require all these calculations.

The answer is not playing those crazy progressions from BA.... TG why don't you enlighten us more with your time machine. We all know how it wins if you bet more and more on the repeaters as they repeat. But of course this isn't always the case. And then your in the hole. Perhaps add the gaps to it.  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Blue_Angel on Oct 17, 04:11 PM 2017
The answer is not playing those crazy progressions from BA....

You don't know what you are talking about, progressions are just tools, how you use them makes the whole difference.
So don't blame a tool if you cannot grasp it properly.
Sorry to say but "gaps" wouldn't help your situation, Falkor has figured it out long time ago, but who listens to the ravings of a "madman"?!
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: TurboGenius on Oct 18, 09:30 PM 2017
We all know how it wins if you bet more and more on the repeaters as they repeat. But of course this isn't always the case. And then your in the hole. Perhaps add the gaps to it.

If you do it right, you're never "in the hole".
As long as there are repeaters, my way wins.
If there are gaps, it's because someone didn't read what I've already written - everything has been explained and in more detail than I would have wanted out in the open - yet there it is.
To anyone who doesn't want to go looking - then start with the basics.
The common sense part..
You cannot lose 1 single unit on a number that doesn't show up if you aren't betting on it.
This means a number sleeping for 600 spins (Bago - lol) won't affect you at all.
You didn't lose 600 units betting on it ? No.
You can only win with repeaters - and thanks to random you can't possibly "know" each and every hot number that is going to appear. I showed my results - at best I got wins on "most" of the numbers that appeared the most over the time of the session.
I certainly didn't manage to be on the best, but I had enough of them that each and every time the player can end in profit.
It's not impossible to do - and it's not so complicated that someone looking at what I've posted can't figure it out, even if they add their own twist.
I've done my best to perfect it for me - no problems to report. Math actually backs it up.
Luckily we have a random game which yes - has limits and is predictable.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: denzie on Oct 19, 12:25 AM 2017
 Well your right about not betting on those sleepy numbers.  :thumbsup:

But there's mostly a hole to get out from. Didn't say a big one but there's one.

Question though: why did you go from 1/5 or 5/25 to the 1/2/4/8/16... Progression? (The earlier 1/2/3/4/5/..I can see not recovering)
 :thumbsup:
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: nottophammer on Oct 19, 04:40 AM 2017
Well your right about not betting on those sleepy numbers.  Partially right.

But there's mostly a hole to get out from. Didn't say a big one but there's one. Yes Den you’re right.

Question though: why did you go from 1/5 or 5/25 to the 1/2/4/8/16... Progression? (The earlier 1/2/3/4/5/..I can see not recovering) 
This why you can be in a hole Den. whatever unit you are using has a length value of 35-1. 35 spins makes a profit, 36 spins breaks even, the more spins after 36 the hole is getting bigger.
So 1 hot number has 35 chances to make profit, but what happens to the value length when another number has to be bet?
Let’s say 1st hottie is bet for 5 spins the value length is now 30 spins, but if you are to bet 2 hot numbers now, the value length is now only 15 spins, say you bet for 3 spins and another hot number is to be bet, 3 hot numbers with the value length at 24, does that not mean you have 8 spins for the win? So each time you add a hot number the value line shrinks. And when the starting 37 just keep waking up that value line shrinks to become a no value line, the big hole you talk off.
1*5(1,2,3,4,5)2*3(7,9,11)3*8(14,17,20,23,26,29,32,35)
Now back to partially right, at the start all 37 numbers are sleepers to you and the experts, but this is the larger group, and the larger group has a better chance of hitting. If you know anything about a starting 37 numbers there’s an average to hit to consider, but that’s for you to work on.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: nottophammer on Oct 19, 05:12 AM 2017
(https://www.rouletteforum.cc/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pichost.org%2Fimages%2F2017%2F10%2F19%2Ftemp_530914.png&hash=746b108648da0f2b78830a2fd73b0ad6) (http://www.pichost.org/image/fpiQ)
1st 10 spins no repeat, but this does happen.
spins 11-20, perfect distribution, 5 of the remaining 37 and 5 repeats.
spins 21-30, good for repeats, only 3 of the remaining 37 came, so this is good for hotties.

As i have shown in Turbo/Denzie, it can be a good method and like Den has said often gets back close to the starting bank roll.
spins 31-40, in the 30 spins 11-40 where you could see 15.8 non-hit come, we see 12 came so -3, whats usual for 60 spins 30.5 here today 29 came.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Bettingking on Oct 19, 08:15 AM 2017
Repeats can work quite well if you enter a casino but id say a minimum of $5,000 is required to have any chance. So if you are not greedy make 5% = $250 within 2 hrs = reasonable return.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: cht on Oct 19, 10:50 AM 2017
Put up $5000 br at risk of that dreaded hole, the objective is to win $250 for 2hrs daily play which gives $5000 profit per month in 2hrs 20days of play, is it worth it ?

My answer is no. Why ?? Becos of the HOLE!
There's the casino waiting to spoil your plan which is worse than the hole!!!

I tweaked repeaters my way, played 8hrs daily play, 100% returns on br for the week is the objective. I was up 150% for the week until the last day. Two zeroes and two consecutive repeat numbers back to back that I did not cover reversed 100% of the back breaking, arse burning work.

Yea it happened to me, ass luck. Or casino cheat ?

Learned my lesson and NEVER will I let them do that to me again! First off, fark repeaters! The excel spreadsheet and the work goes down the drain, too bad. Second, the casino cheat! Now lets play the roulette game at the correct setting. Beat the casino!!!

Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: denzie on Oct 19, 01:07 PM 2017
If you bring 5k to win 250 bucks your doomed. That's a big no.

Now bring 250 bucks to win 5k is more like it  :lol:

Ok ok or at least another 250$ ( yes it can)
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: cht on Oct 19, 01:17 PM 2017
If you bring 5k to win 250 bucks your doomed. That's a big no.

Now bring 250 bucks to win 5k is more like it  :lol:

Ok ok or at least another 250$ ( yes it can)
Right on the money.  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: fossell on Oct 19, 02:57 PM 2017
Yup agree with Denzie and cht there. You wouldn't need or risk 5K to secure just 250 units. But I presume betting king wasn't meaning that just for one session.

 
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Bettingking on Oct 19, 05:08 PM 2017
Yes i know and understand im not saying risk the whole $5,000 as it would be broken down into separate bank rolls and as i have found i dont bet on usually more than 5-8 numbers at most. Will post my system when i have more time
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: TurboGenius on Oct 19, 06:14 PM 2017
The correct way to look at it is to do proper testing.
See the maximum drawdown and the current bankroll balance - once you've tested
enough spins.
If your max drawdown is 2k and your current bankroll is 20k - then you're fine.
If your current bankroll over many tested spins is still less then the biggest drawdown - don't continue on with that line of thinking.
As I said - my way doesn't require digging out of holes. There are drawdowns and yes it recovers every single time. As long as a numbers repeat - it can't lose.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Bettingking on Oct 20, 07:53 AM 2017
Yes i agree. I have not read every page here. Is your preferred method with repeats here near the beginning or is it trial and error with hints like Falkor teases.....if there is any merett to anything that looks into the universe for answers. Lol
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: cht on Jan 10, 04:00 AM 2018
The correct way to look at it is to do proper testing.
See the maximum drawdown and the current bankroll balance - once you've tested
enough spins.
If your max drawdown is 2k and your current bankroll is 20k - then you're fine.
If your current bankroll over many tested spins is still less then the biggest drawdown - don't continue on with that line of thinking.
As I said - my way doesn't require digging out of holes. There are drawdowns and yes it recovers every single time. As long as a numbers repeat - it can't lose.
Hi TurboGenius,

We all have gone over this ground umpteen times whether your way, all that you posted on forums, your Parx results is legitimate or not.

I have done a thorough re-assessment of unhit, hit, R1, R2....and so on again.

I finally "understand" your way what you've tried to communicate to us readers with your posts repeating much the same thing always, no more no less.

Now I admit I was wrong about your way will not work. It works as you describe how it will happen and your Parx result is a possible reflection of what is possible playing your way, you have no reason to fake the result. I will add that this is possibly the best way ever to win at the random roulette game.

Thank you for sharing your way and to be in line with your intent on the extent shared on forums that's all I'll say about this.

cht
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Jan 10, 04:04 AM 2018
CHT, I suggest you go back and test properly. TG's theories, comments and testing methods are full of many holes. Its not just me who sees it - Anyone with proper understanding of roulette says the same thing.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: cht on Jan 10, 04:16 AM 2018
CHT, I suggest you go back and test properly. TG's theories, comments and testing methods are full of many holes. Its not just me who sees it - Anyone with proper understanding of roulette says the same thing.
I understand your reservation. I also understand your pov and the many, many others who wrote about this. I share the same pov until I did proper tests. It told me otherwise.

My post above is not to validate TG's theories, comments and testing methods. I did tests based on my understanding of TG's way how he plays the game. It's not rationale not to retract my earlier comments and correct them. All that said in my humble opinion.

Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Jan 10, 04:37 AM 2018
Ive done my tests too. One of us missing something. I have an open mind about it, but at some point I have to dismiss it when I cant see one valid point he has. Really I'd love to be wrong, but I cant find a single valid and relevant point to substantiate his claims. Instead I got contradictions and his misunderstandings.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: TurboGenius on Jan 10, 06:29 AM 2018
Thank you for sharing your way and to be in line with your intent on the extent shared on forums that's all I'll say about this.

You're welcome, and thank you as well.

One of us missing something.

And that is the truth.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: DoctorSudoku on Jan 10, 08:26 AM 2018
Ive done my tests too. One of us missing something. I have an open mind about it, but at some point I have to dismiss it when I cant see one valid point he has. Really I'd love to be wrong, but I cant find a single valid and relevant point to substantiate his claims. Instead I got contradictions and his misunderstandings.


Steve,
Over the last few months, I have done a lot of testing of Turbo's version of the repeaters method with my collection of dealer-spun and airball wheel spins. My tests have consistently shown that his version drags you down into deep negative progression territory quite frequently -- and the more you try to dig yourself out of the hole, the deeper the hole gets.

I do want to mention that betting on repeaters is one of the more promising betting strategies out there (there are multiple versions of this betting strategy).

However, Turbo's version is NOT one of the better ones.

There are other versions that have been proposed by forum members that give you a better chance of coming out with a profit on a more consistent basis.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: denzie on Jan 10, 02:09 PM 2018


Over the last few months, I have done a lot of testing of Turbo's version of the repeaters method with my collection of dealer-spun and airball wheel spins. My tests have consistently shown that his version drags you down into deep negative progression territory quite frequently -- and the more you try to dig yourself out of the hole, the deeper ....

Pls enlighten how TG plays....just to clarify your doing it correct. Thx (coz he never posted how and his graphs where played different)
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: DoctorSudoku on Jan 10, 04:41 PM 2018
Turbo's idea essentially entails betting from spin no. 1 of a cycle and keep betting every number that appears subsequently. He advocates using a positive progression whereby you bet more on numbers that repeat (more on multiple repeaters).

The biggest problem that I have experienced with the above approach is that sometimes (in fact, quite frequently) the first repeater appears well after spin no. 10 or beyond -- and that's when you start getting into a hole (and using a negative progression makes you sink deeper into the hole).

Compared to Turbo's approach of starting betting from the very first spin , I have found that specifically targeting 2-peaters to become 3-peaters usually gives better results.

I mentioned this to you several months ago on another thread. At that time, you asked me why I stopped at 3-peaters and not go for 4-peaters and beyond.

I have tested 3-peaters going to 4-peaters and 4-peaters going to 5-peaters. My testing has consistently shown that targeting 2-peaters to become 3-peaters seems to be the most fruitful way of exploiting repeaters (or numbers hitting above average).

At least as of today, that has been my experience.

More tinkering with alternate ways of targeting repeaters might lead to a more better approach. That is why researching different ways of betting on repeaters is something that I will keep doing for the foreseeable future.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: DoctorSudoku on Jan 10, 04:41 PM 2018
By the way, it was your posts on different threads advocating betting on repeaters (that is, the so-called "hot numbers" that are hitting more than average in a cycle) that got me interested in this topic -- and I thank you for that.   :thumbsup:   :thumbsup:
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Jan 10, 04:52 PM 2018
One of us missing something.
And that is the truth.

Its really easy to fall back on this claim. But for people who understand better, you have made glaringly obvious mistakes and contradictions you cant explain, except by saying we "you don't understand". Anyway let's not go in circles again.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Madi on Jan 10, 05:07 PM 2018
3-4 or 4-5 wont give u win. While u ll find that in 2 cycle  the numbers are still in 4s but by averaging it should be on 5s.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Madi on Jan 10, 05:11 PM 2018
[quote author=DoctorSudoku link=topic=18348.msg188174#msg188174 date

The biggest problem that I have experienced with the above approach is that sometimes (in fact, quite frequently) the first repeater appears well after spin no. 10 or beyond --


3-4 number to play . What u r missing then.
[/quote]
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Madi on Jan 10, 05:13 PM 2018
A number appears 5 times and he win 4 time exactly on that number. Not 2 or 3 times
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: ozon on Jan 10, 05:24 PM 2018
I can describe how I made 12k units using the TURBO assumptions
I do not know if it was a good way, but unfortunately it stopped at a certain point, later a neutral trend followed and no longer generated a profit.
I started with the first spin
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Madi on Jan 10, 05:30 PM 2018
Is that real money? Go ahead
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: TurboGenius on Jan 10, 05:34 PM 2018
However, Turbo's version is NOT one of the better ones.

I love it when a comment like this appears - Nowhere did I post a step by step on what I'm doing. If what "your" doing isn't working, I can assure you that it's not what I'm doing.

Pls enlighten how TG plays....just to clarify your doing it correct.

Exactly. Which is why he's not getting the results expected.

Compared to Turbo's approach of starting betting from the very first spin , I have found that specifically targeting 2-peaters to become 3-peaters usually gives better results.

This would mean recording, tracking spins - a big no-no. For the record - sitting and waiting, recording and tracking spins is a waste of time for any method of play.

Anyway let's not go in circles again.

I agree - I didn't bump the thread and said that I was done commenting on it.
I do however feel the need to reply when someone says "I play Turbo's method and it doesn't work" etc - because if it were played properly, it can't and doesn't lose.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: DoctorSudoku on Jan 10, 05:44 PM 2018
I can describe how I made 12k units using the TURBO assumptions
I do not know if it was a good way, but unfortunately it stopped at a certain point, later a neutral trend followed and no longer generated a profit.
I started with the first spin


Turbo's method is based on betting from the very first spin of a cycle -- that is its Achilles' heel.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Blue_Angel on Jan 10, 05:50 PM 2018
Your first mistake is betting for repeats, back 2 basics since elementary probability is beyond your grasp.

Roughly 66% of all times a number will show up at least once, the numbers with 1 hit have 50-50 chance (minus 0) to stay on 1 hit or repeat for second time.

Why would someone exchange the 66 with the 50% is beyond my understanding, therefore when your basis is weakened by your decision you must NOT expect any such strategy to be long term winner.

At the end, betting for 1 hit to go for 2 is no better than betting Black VS Red, same probability but with increased volatility.
No progression, whether negative or positive, could replace what you don't know, yes, eventually a number hits twice, thrice...etc BUT by that time you could have lost much more, thus rendering progressions obsolete.

Take it back from the beginning because you've missed the 1st step which is fundamental, just remember why LOT means Law Of Thirds!
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: ozon on Jan 10, 05:51 PM 2018
Only cents. This was test.

After the first spin and play 1 number after 2 nd spin and play 2 numbers after 3 Spin Play 3 numbers. That was max numbers I play.
I play 3 first numbers, so long until the first repeater appears, then i stop betting on  past  numbers, and  start on the repeated  first number, I checked the for next repeater, I did so to the max 3 numbers that were repeaters.
And I did it every time when the hotter level appeared, I stopped playing previous numbers and played this hottest.

The progression I used was positive 1-5-25
I always stopped the sessions when I had a profit
The first level I played to hit, if it was minus after hit and ply secound level ,after hit, was minus play third step, after 3rd hit stop, whether it was a minus or a plus
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Madi on Jan 10, 06:04 PM 2018
Close enough
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: ozon on Jan 10, 06:14 PM 2018
For sure there is a better way to use hot numbers. There are many variants.
And probably better used progression. That's why it stopped at some point.
I have little time for tests, because lately I focus on forex.
But all the time I'm trying to expand my knowledge about roulette.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Madi on Jan 10, 06:26 PM 2018
Ozon thats kind of blind betting. U wait for those one of the 3 to appear. My suggestion focus on which 3 repeat and which finish with 3 hit in 37. Not look on stage betting but that is bonus
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: ozon on Jan 10, 06:31 PM 2018
Thanks Madi.
I'll try to think about it.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: nottophammer on Jan 10, 07:15 PM 2018
Turbo's idea essentially entails betting from spin no. 1 of a cycle and keep betting every number that appears subsequently. He advocates using a positive progression whereby you bet more on numbers that repeat (more on multiple repeaters).

The biggest problem that I have experienced with the above approach is that sometimes (in fact, quite frequently) the first repeater appears well after spin no. 10 or beyond -- and that's when you start getting into a hole (and using a negative progression makes you sink deeper into the hole).   276 in the hole

Compared to Turbo's approach of starting betting from the very first spin , I have found that specifically targeting 2-peaters to become 3-peaters usually gives better results.

I mentioned this to you several months ago on another thread. At that time, you asked me why I stopped at 3-peaters and not go for 4-peaters and beyond.

I have tested 3-peaters going to 4-peaters and 4-peaters going to 5-peaters. My testing has consistently shown that targeting 2-peaters to become 3-peaters seems to be the most fruitful way of exploiting repeaters (or numbers hitting above average).

At least as of today, that has been my experience.

More tinkering with alternate ways of targeting repeaters might lead to a more better approach. That is why researching different ways of betting on repeaters is something that I will keep doing for the foreseeable future.
(https://www.rouletteforum.cc/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pichost.org%2Fimages%2F2018%2F01%2F10%2Ftemp_885010.png&hash=d78b6c3128eb652cd76b21653970f65e) (http://www.pichost.org/image/nYPl)
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Madi on Jan 10, 07:23 PM 2018
Notto,
I can see a lot of green colour thing. Can u plz explain ur strategy plz
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: DoctorSudoku on Jan 10, 07:44 PM 2018
(https://www.rouletteforum.cc/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pichost.org%2Fimages%2F2018%2F01%2F10%2Ftemp_885010.png&hash=d78b6c3128eb652cd76b21653970f65e) (http://www.pichost.org/image/nYPl)


Nottop,
Your table illustrates the most fundamental problem that I have run into with Turbo's method -- namely, that in many cycles, the first repeater appears well after spin no. 10.

In Turbo's method, you start betting with spin no. 1 -- and then you keep betting EVERY SINGLE number that appears in subsequent spins (along with EVERY ONE of its  PREDECESSORS).

If the repeaters don't come early, you find yourself in a deep hole quite rapidly.

And once the repeaters come, even increasing your amounts on these repeaters (as in a positive progression) does NOT get you out of the hole on a consistent basis (sometimes it does, however, more often than not, it does not).
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: cht on Jan 10, 09:28 PM 2018
I love it when a comment like this appears - Nowhere did I post a step by step on what I'm doing. If what "your" doing isn't working, I can assure you that it's not what I'm doing.

Exactly. Which is why he's not getting the results expected.

This would mean recording, tracking spins - a big no-no. For the record - sitting and waiting, recording and tracking spins is a waste of time for any method of play.

I agree - I didn't bump the thread and said that I was done commenting on it.
I do however feel the need to reply when someone says "I play Turbo's method and it doesn't work" etc - because if it were played properly, it can't and doesn't lose.
I bump the thread to correct the wrong and re-state what's correct.

I notice that comments posted tend to imply that TG is wrong or lying with his claims. There is more interest in TG the person than the stuff TG wrote that might be useful to improve our own betting especially for most of you system players.

Here is what I do and don't do -

1. Read and understand clearly and exactly what TG wrote.

2. There are plenty of such statements made repeatedly and consistently in his posts made over many years.

3. Don't add to what he wrote.

4. Don't take away any part of what he wrote.

5. Don't brush aside statements that he wrote that seem unimportant, they are not.

6. Don't assume with a bias mind about his writing.

7. Don't prejudge his writing, read with exactness and an open mind.

I gained better understanding in playing hotties after reading winkel, TG, Colbster and Vaddis.

Each one of them has their own strategy which are different. In all cases it happens the same that people tend disprove their strategy than try to learn whatever they can from them. What's worse is to misinterprete them which distorted what they shared to something else that's not connected to what they originally posted.

If you are interested only to improve your own betting knowledge and skill, read the above 4 posters and extract the most fundamental and core approach to their individual strategies. There are weaknesses as well as strengths in each one of them, tabulate strengths and weaknesses in a T table. Discard the weak and adopt the strong.

Here are some examples -

1. Winkel - I use binomial distribution, kolgomorov 'process' and markov 'chain'.

2. TG - bet the hotties (in a nutshell).

3. Vaddis - 8-set numbers.

4. Colbster - bet when the count is favourable.

Each one of them are sharing their individual experience playing the game. They are highlighting the strengths they observed/experienced from years of playing the game. Exploit that for your benefit.

There are plenty such statements made some so obscure and insignificant that they are often glossed over. You just missed important points that will take you years to uncover or discover with your own effort.

I won't go into further details. You put in the work. Ask the right question you might get a response from the OP of whatever strategy depending on how much he intends to share.

The bolded part in TG's comments above summarises all of this.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: cht on Jan 10, 09:48 PM 2018
In Turbo's method, you start betting with spin no. 1 -- and then you keep betting EVERY SINGLE number that appears in subsequent spins (along with EVERY ONE of its  PREDECESSORS).
TG replied my question directly related to this in notto's thread.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: nottophammer on Jan 12, 07:00 PM 2018
was this Turbo's last attempt on MPR, if its so good on Parx then why not try again?
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: TurboGenius on Jan 12, 11:21 PM 2018
was this Turbo's last attempt on MPR, if its so good on Parx then why not try again?

I have a valid reason why I won't play on the site's roulette game, it has nothing to do with the fairness of the game results - but there is an important reason why I won't play there now. Steve knows, or should - if not I can PM him why I no longer play there

5. Don't brush aside statements that he wrote that seem unimportant, they are not.

You are very good at noticing details. There have been posts where I've said something or pointed to something somewhere and practically no one noticed. I don't mean it to be a game or a tease - but someone truly interested would take note and explore in the direction I pointed them in, others won't. It's a sure way to not release all of the answers to everyone in the open I suppose. It seems effective.
My main goal is to drive home the fact (and I mean fact) that this game can be beaten, it's not impossible - regardless of how many people/experts/nay sayers say otherwise. It's just a matter of someone going in the right direction and working it out. Also, not giving up.
If I stopped or 'threw in the towel' every time someone told me it's impossible - I wouldn't be here now. Other ways work as well - bias wheels, signature and I'm sure computers as well on some level.. but the only way the average player can walk out a winner consistently without using these methods is to use something that works. Only a very few things work - but any system or method that does is based on numbers appearing greater than expected (hot) and the math being in the player's favor instead of the house. If they say it's impossible - fine... I surely can't convince anyone who doesn't even think it's possible and isn't even trying.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Jan 13, 05:17 AM 2018
Usually when a claim is true, theres at least one good piece of information that's verifiably true. In your case tg, all I've seen is a series of contradictory clues, and inaccurate statements about roulette.

I mean literally i haven't seen a single valid, correct and relevant point. It has been the opposite.

I don't consider you a bad guy but everything ive seen indicates you're misleading people either knowingly or not. And i still keep coming back to the point about spending weeks with rigged fun play instead of real money. There's just too much wrong for it to be believable. I really hope I'm wrong.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: cht on Jan 13, 06:19 AM 2018
I don't consider you a bad guy but everything ive seen indicates you're misleading people either knowingly or not.
If that's what you belief, then the appropriate action to take is to lock this thread and TG banned.

I have to be banned on similar grounds.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: sentinel3 on Jan 13, 06:23 AM 2018

Turbo's method is based on betting from the very first spin of a cycle -- that is its Achilles' heel.
This is no holy grail. There never was and neverwill be. What I have seen and understand about roulette is this.

Its a percentage game. There is no pattern variance cannot find. And decode. The biggest mistake thats ever been made by people designing systems. Is believing they can outlive a losing streak. They can find something that ALWAYS shows a positive profit at the end of each and every game.

This is why all fail longterm. The only thing that wins longterm is the knowing. That overall you can expect to win MORE than you LOSE. And any who have that understanding.

And a system that delivers that knowing. Can beat roulette. If I play 10 games for example. And know I will always win ar least 5 of them. It doesnt even matter anymore if the 5 wins show positive numbers matched against the five losers.

You factor in the necessary money management. To assure as long as you get those 5 wins out of 10 or better. You show a profit.

Thats the mystery of beating this game explained right there. Roulette is a PERCENTAGE GAME. Find that which gives you a minumum expected return. And variance house edge and table limits. Can never defeat you.

Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Taotie on Jan 13, 06:31 AM 2018
the appropriate action to take is to lock this thread and TG banned.

I have to be banned on similar grounds.

Ban everybody!

We're all a bunch of wankers anyway, so ban everybody for breaking the no wankers allowed rule.  :thumbsup:


What?

There's no, no wankers allowed rule?.. well there should be.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: TurboGenius on Jan 13, 07:52 AM 2018
Ban everybody!

We're all a bunch of wankers anyway, so ban everybody for breaking the no wankers allowed rule.  :thumbsup:

That was funny lol

I don't consider you a bad guy but everything ive seen indicates you're misleading people either knowingly or not. And i still keep coming back to the point about spending weeks with rigged fun play instead of real money.

I have played with real money at Parx in PA and AC and have posted those results.
They are exactly in line with the online results, however I have no plans of doing it everyday - as I've said - once or twice per month is fine with me. They don't care about
the small amount that I walk out with.
The "misleading" claim is understandable - you can't agree with me unless either you figure it out on your own which I don't think you want to do because you don't believe it's possible - or if you see proof... but for you to see proof you would have to be shown exactly what it is and how it works in detail - which I obviously won't do.
So to you it's a choice I suppose. I can show you results but those results will either be "rigged" or "not enough spins" or any number of reasons you can insert that backs up what you believe - that's it's not possible. I can't do anything about that.
That only leaves me with showing results and explaining what I can - the readers can make their own choices as well. "Misleading" would typically mean that I had a motive - what would that even be ? I'm not selling systems, I'm not casino staff - I have no motive to tell people something I know isn't true - so why would I ?
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: DoctorSudoku on Jan 13, 08:05 AM 2018


If that's what you belief, then the appropriate action to take is to lock this thread





That is actually  a very good idea.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: TurboGenius on Jan 13, 08:30 AM 2018
That is actually  a very good idea.

You can always avoid the thread and not read it, not comment in it.
But since you do read and comment in it - locking it would also silence you.
There's no purpose in doing such a thing unless there's a need to avoid the
truth or silence opinions on either side - so no, it's not a good idea.
But hey, I'm in the US - we have freedom of speech and the only time that is threatened is when people want to avoid the truth being told.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: DoctorSudoku on Jan 13, 01:56 PM 2018

But hey, I'm in the US - we have freedom of speech and the only time that is threatened is when people want to avoid the truth being told.



I am also in the US -- and I have used my freedom of speech to say what I have already said about your supposedly infallible method in this thread.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: TurboGenius on Jan 13, 02:40 PM 2018
your supposedly infallible method

And yet you don't have the details of how I play... so your assumptions about what I do turn out not to work - that's understandable. Once you have the actual way to play and test it yourself I suppose it's another story. Do you stand outside of theaters and tell people going in "I haven't seen this movie but trust me, it's terrible". No, of course not - thank God for forums where nonsense like that can go on.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: DoctorSudoku on Jan 13, 02:44 PM 2018
And yet you don't have the details of how I play... so your assumptions about what I do turn out not to work - that's understandable. Once you have the actual way to play and test it yourself I suppose it's another story. Do you stand outside of theaters and tell people going in "I haven't seen this movie but trust me, it's terrible". No, of course not - thank God for forums where nonsense like that can go on.


Yet your acolytes and minions who also do NOT have all the details of how you play claim that your method works.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: nottophammer on Jan 13, 02:59 PM 2018
He's been on forums longer than me, so if the answer lies in multiple replies all over different forums, i will not look.
But from some replies on here, from denzie and others, i have tried different approaches, but the 1,2,3,4,5 does well. Whether its right way,I and the rest of us will not know.
A hot number is it a 1 hit, has the 1 hit, hit above expectation if all 37 are expected to hit in 37 spins. If this 1 hit, became a 2 hit, now it would be a candidate to be hot.

Madi the green chart has 22, 1hits i believe before a repeat showed, so are the 22, hot #'s? 
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: RouletteGhost on Jan 13, 03:20 PM 2018
One will come to learn one thing about forums

What’s not disclosed, but still championed, is typically bullshit

Sorry. But true.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Madi on Jan 13, 03:29 PM 2018


Madi the green chart has 22, 1hits i believe before a repeat showed, so are the 22, hot #'s?

Definitely not in 37 spin. But if u consider in 1000 spin  yes those can be
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Jan 13, 03:48 PM 2018
Not believing you is because everything you've said is either contradictory or plain inaccurate. Again there doesn't appear to be any verifiable, accurate or true claim. Not one. Whether intentional or not.

Not believing you has nothing to do with thinking the hg doesn't exist. Because i believe it could exist. But it is not repackaged fallacy.

Playing for weeks on rigged play for fun, plus a few times a month in a real casino is hardly proof a system works. I won for around a year with a losing dozens system until i learned better.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Madi on Jan 13, 04:21 PM 2018
“ bet every number that appear”  what can u expect from those who r following this. Ofcourse nonsense.

“Bet 3 - 4 number”. Yes u can expect something good as feedback.

But the two statement
are totally different.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: denzie on Jan 13, 04:53 PM 2018
As TG plays in B&M....he wont play just any number that comes up....that would be insane.

He does know when a repeat is gonna happen most of the time. (Like most of us)

He doesnt play 38 numbers with a unfair payout. He plays less numbers with a fair payout.

He never bet numbers that didnt come.

And not forget the graphs he posted on the other forum....there are dd for hunderds of spins...so he dont win all the time but should win at the end...coz the math say so.

 :girl_to:
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: PassionRuleta on Jan 13, 04:57 PM 2018
Hola, mi nombre es Sergio, soy de Barcelona y soy nuevo en el foro. Un placer.
Me he registrado porque llevo unos días viendo este foro donde hay información que es muy interesante y que algunas de las cosas me e puesto a estudiar, precisamente lo de turbo genius a quien no conozco, pero admiro y agradezco la poca información que e podido leer de el.
He estado intentando estudiar con lo poco que se lo que el a comentado en las pocas conversaciones que he leído sobre su tema y me puesto a probar muchas cosas y la verdad que hay alguna cosa que da resultados increíbles y no es ninguna broma.
Me gustaría preguntarle al señor turbo si pudiera compartir conmigo lo que ha escrito en otros foros o esas grandes pistas que ha dado sobre su forma y sus gráficas, ya que te envié un correo electrónico y no e recibido respuesta.
Usted dice que da pistas para que la gente trabaje y lo intente, yo estoy aquí para trabajar sobre lo que dice y sacarlo, porque creo que ya saqué mucho de lo que dice con cuatro frases k e leído de usted.
A si que si es tan amable de darme algunas de esas pistas que a dado en este y otros foros, me ayudara mucho para trabajarlo e investigar e intentar llegar asta dónde está usted.
Si no quiere por el foro, mi correo es SCAMMER.es, por si decide darme todas esas pistas que dio y que yo no he leído en otros foros, yo se lo agradecería mucho ya que realmente estoy intentando con muchas horas de práctica e investigación saber cómo usted lo hace, ya que soy un apasionado de la ruleta y me encanta investigarla. Gracias
Por otra parte también he leído en otro foro al señor blue ángel que también me gustaría si pudiera darme más información de cómo entender bien el craking pi el cual tmb llevo mucho tiempo estudiando y creo que de hay también se puede sacar algo muy muy interesante y sobretodo agradecer a cada uno toda la información que dan y su tiempo en si pueden darme información para poder seguir avanzando en esto.
Cómo dije, un placer a todos de este foro y aquí tienen a un investigador serio más.
Saludos a todos, un placer
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Madi on Jan 13, 05:13 PM 2018
As TG plays in B&M....he wont play just any number that comes up....that would be insane.



 :girl_to:

But he stated so . What would u consider this then?

Yes right. If u can pick up right numbers.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: denzie on Jan 13, 05:18 PM 2018
But he stated so . What would u consider this then?

Iets say he sits down and get Notto's numbers with 22 spins without a repeat...he need to transform into a octopus to place those chips....so he didnt share all the info in a clear "how to win" package
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: nottophammer on Jan 13, 05:28 PM 2018
Yes we know he like to it beside the wheel, so to reach 3rd doz be hard if busy and if like old top dog J says played fast.

So its a ? of when you start, plenty of info states its likely to have a repeat in 1st 10 spins, if no repeat starting to be to many #'s, so do you wait for #'s to go to 2hit, hotties ? just come of MPR had plenty of blocks of 10 spins giving repeats so hot#'s.

Steve it still crashes and spits out 2 #'s
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Madi on Jan 13, 05:33 PM 2018
Not to share and showing the road that goes nowhere is not same thing.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: cht on Jan 13, 08:12 PM 2018
I don't bet on all numbers that appeared - it wouldn't really be possible unless I was at a terminal or playing online. At a table I can't cover a large amount of numbers so I keep the amount of numbers that I play small. So I miss out on some great wins - yes. I only need one or a few of my played numbers to win above expected, and that always happens.
There are many such statements TG posted that are math correct. Find them if you are interested to find his way of play.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: TurboGenius on Jan 13, 08:16 PM 2018
See ? Someone pays attention :)
I'm glad, it means it's not a total waste going up against the nay-sayers
because at least a few people will benefit from my posts.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: PassionRuleta on Jan 13, 09:17 PM 2018
Hi, I see that Turbo is here, I'm glad.
Well, I do not think that at the moment I'm doing the same thing because I do not have much information, what if I thought a lot about how little graphs like it were made, but I still lack things to know how to do it correctly and so I would like if you could give me some more information, if you could answer by mail I would be enormously grateful, I will explain the various ideas and tests and it would be good if you told me if I'm doing well or badly, I think I'm doing fine, but as that you say sure that with some more clue you can overcome.
a greeting and here you have an admirer and fighter to get to the end, thanks
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Madi on Jan 13, 09:29 PM 2018
“ bet every number that appear”  what can u expect from those who r following this. Ofcourse nonsense.

“Bet 3 - 4 number”. Yes u can expect something good as feedback.

But the two statement
are totally different.

Wish u read the full comment. Ye i accepted last march his way work. But it doesnt mean that he didnt state those two sentence while both cant be correct.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: cht on Jan 13, 09:39 PM 2018
Wish u read the full comment. Ye i accepted last march his way work. But it doesnt mean that he didnt state those two sentence while both cant be correct.
I followed the one that most likely lead me to the gold pot.  :)

Yes right. If u can pick up right numbers.

Tbh, I had to add some Winkel to get there.

TG got me on the trail, Winkel gave me the tools.  :thumbsup:

Huge credit to both of them, the best system players to grace forums.  :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Madi on Jan 13, 09:44 PM 2018
I followed the one that most likely lead me to the gold pot



U cant blame others who followed the other one written by same author and failed. And at the end named nonsense
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: cht on Jan 13, 09:47 PM 2018
U cant blame others who followed the other one written by same author and failed. And at the end named nonsense
No, I don't.

Do I say then you are wrong ?

No. You missed the missing part when you come to your conclusions. I can't fault you if you don't know what you don't know.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My main goal is to drive home the fact (and I mean fact) that this game can be beaten, it's not impossible - regardless of how many people/experts/nay sayers say otherwise. It's just a matter of someone going in the right direction and working it out. Also, not giving up.
To me, this is true.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Madi on Jan 13, 09:48 PM 2018
When u will run a winkle in tgs method u will see the top one running fast but gut prefer to catch second top and numbers increase in some cases
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Madi on Jan 13, 09:49 PM 2018
No its not you.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Madi on Jan 13, 09:52 PM 2018
I tried to incorporate gut inside tgs way but for me it doesnt suit.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Roulette Rat on Jan 14, 04:15 PM 2018
Hi Guys. What Turbo says is very true, I have a similar system I have been playing for years and I am winning nicely. I play on repeaters but think the way I apply them is different to Turbo. I only play in B&M, never online. The only way to beat the game is to play on numbers and stay ahead of the odds.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: denzie on Jan 16, 02:04 PM 2018
When you play repeaters (the third show of any number for example) you no longer have 38 possible winning numbers - you have a small hand full of numbers that are the only ones that can win.
Since we know that repeaters will happen - we already know what numbers to play.
Perhaps that's one simple thing that people are missing ?

A aggressive progression is also key - 

But what if our selected numbers come late ? Very late
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: denzie on Jan 16, 02:42 PM 2018
And what about that graph in the "what if i told you" thread.... you was down around 1000 spins. (First page)

 :thumbsup:
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Madi on Jan 16, 03:01 PM 2018
In real play there will b noticeble drawdown. Sometimes go out of control.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: nottophammer on Jan 16, 03:36 PM 2018
When you play repeaters (the third show of any number for example) you no longer have 38 possible winning numbers
Always said bet repeats from spin 20.
(https://www.rouletteforum.cc/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pichost.org%2Fimages%2F2018%2F01%2F16%2Ftemp_994418.png&hash=de7b75f54171d1154f6641c51f24231b) (http://www.pichost.org/image/yfMF)
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: nottophammer on Jan 16, 03:38 PM 2018
well yesterdays #'s by mort, TG make a killing even before spin 20
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: nottophammer on Jan 16, 03:43 PM 2018
No end of Pryi's green graphs show bet after 20
(https://www.rouletteforum.cc/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pichost.org%2Fimages%2F2018%2F01%2F16%2Ftemp_932940.png&hash=f2de81abb5ba6d4bb972192ed263b68d) (http://www.pichost.org/image/yhIi)
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Jan 16, 05:09 PM 2018
Turbo, I have a question for you.

Does your method change the ODDS?

For example, the odds of the next number spinning is 1 in 37.  Do you change this to perhaps 1 in 34 or something?
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Andre Chass on Jan 16, 06:00 PM 2018
I'd like to apologize to TG. Now I know it's true, it's possible!
I think I know the way TG plays.
Now I know it's possible to know what numbers to play. And it works 99%.
It works flatbet but its better using a positive progression.
Why positive?
Because we know it won't fail.

Why he will not say how to bet step by step?
The casinos WIIL change the rules.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Jan 16, 06:20 PM 2018
Andre, at the moment you are very new to roulette, and your understanding is growing rapidly - but there's still a lot to learn. This makes your opinions and conclusions volatile. What Turbo has is nonsense. If you pay attention to what is being said and what everything means, you'll know this. If you do quick testing and see positive results, you'll be easily fooled. It often happens with any progression system.

I have no personal problem with turbo. I have a problem with misleading and harmful information. If you follow his logic, you will eventually lose and then just think maybe you dont know "his secret". So you'll keep looking and repeat the process.

Stick to the basics:

1. The past spins don't have connection to future spins (without real physical variable correlation). This includes repeaters. It has been exhaustively tested, far beyond what anyone here has tested - including you, me and turbo combined.

2. Turbo is saying otherwise, citing short term results. And citing rigged game results while claiming they arent rigged, without understanding basic math.

There's much more. My loyalty is to the truth - to what you can prove, to what's logical, reasonable etc. And there is not a single thing I can find that Turbo is preaching that's valid. I'm still looking, but its a lot like looking for proof Earth is flat. The information all points the other way.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Andre Chass on Jan 16, 06:43 PM 2018
Andre, at the moment you are very new to roulette, and your understanding is growing rapidly - but there's still a lot to learn. This makes your opinions and conclusions volatile.

That doesn't mean anything. What matters is the person's ability to learn quickly, study hard, and test all kinds of strategies. I play roulette for only three years but I study a lot. 6 to 8 hours per day.

 What Turbo has is nonsense. If you pay attention to what is being said and what everything means, you'll know this. If you do quick testing and see positive results, you'll be easily fooled. It often happens with any progression system.

I have no personal problem with turbo. I have a problem with misleading and harmful information. If you follow his logic, you will eventually lose and then just think maybe you dont know "his secret". So you'll keep looking and repeat the process.

Stick to the basics:

1. The past spins don't have connection to future spins (without real physical variable correlation). This includes repeaters. It has been exhaustively tested, far beyond what anyone here has tested - including you, me and turbo combined.

Spin of cycles of 37 spins over and over.
Near 24 numbers will appear once.
You can do this over and over and the total amount of numbers that appear will end up being 24-28.

2. Turbo is saying otherwise, citing short term results. And citing rigged game results while claiming they arent rigged, without understanding basic math.

There's much more. My loyalty is to the truth - to what you can prove, to what's logical, reasonable etc. And there is not a single thing I can find that Turbo is preaching that's valid. I'm still looking, but its a lot like looking for proof Earth is flat. The information all points the other way.

I could prove you that TG is right, but I can't.

All my respect for you, Steve.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Jan 16, 06:53 PM 2018
Spin of cycles of 37 spins over and over.
Near 24 numbers will appear once. You can do this over and over and the total amount of numbers that appear will end up being 24-28.

No the cycles don't link up like that, without any physical cause. There is no correlation like that. Andre I really hope you are right, but you have been misled and I would bet my balls you'll eventually learn better.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Jan 16, 06:55 PM 2018
Turbo, you say you tell secrets to help people. I think you're just misleading them whether intentional or not.

On one hand I think your intentions are good and you probably think your system works. Because you've done some testing in a rigged game and still think it's a realistic game.

On the other hand, I don't believe your claim that you only use it to win small amounts in real casinos once a month or so. I believe if your system worked as you claim, you would be spending a lot more time winning real money, instead of playing for weeks with fun money in a rigged casino trying to convince other people you have the HG. Basically if your system was capable of winning multiple millions starting with a few thousands, you would be doing it for real. Anyway that's what I believe.

Since you are giving out various clues and amassing followers, your words can either help or harm people. It is then reasonable for people to pound you with questions. After all, that's how we weed out bullshit. Anyone with a sound mind can expect if they claim to have the HG and give out clues, then are going to need to answer questions. And if you arent prepared to answer, then you should have kept quiet from the start. Otherwise you are just baiting people.

So in the interests of avoiding bad advice harming people, please answer the following:

* Does your system in any way change the ODDS of winning for the next spin?
(there is no grey answer. It's either yes or no, like the solution to a mathematical equation)

* Is your system profitable without any progression?

* Exactly what testing have you done, and with how many spins?
(for example, parx and with how many spins, and rng from what source, and how many spins)

* The only results I've ever seen you publish are either from parx, or short term roulette xtreme charts. Regarding the roulette xtreme charts, why are they only short term results? (like 60 or so spins from memory)?

* What do you feel is the statistical relevance of so few spins in the roulette extreme charts?

* How much have you won in REAL MONEY with your system?

* One day you were boasting about how much you won at parx, then the next you say you lost it all... INTENTIONALLY. Exactly would you do this?

* Do you still claim that parx is not at all a rigged game?
(most recently you said the only difference is real casinos take longer to win at)

* Exactly WHY does it take longer to win at real casinos?

* Exactly why havent you won millions with real online casinos?
(its very easy to use another player's account to bypass USA restrictions, and you could win millions)

* Your current system is about hot numbers. Have you ever claimed you had the HG and that it was based about cold numbers?

I haven't asked you about anything that would reveal secrets of your system. Again the way I see it is you are harming people. And these important questions need to be asked.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: cht on Jan 16, 09:45 PM 2018
I'd like to apologize to TG. Now I know it's true, it's possible!
I think I know the way TG plays.
Now I know it's possible to know what numbers to play. And it works 99%.
It works flatbet but its better using a positive progression.
Why positive?
Because we know it won't fail.

Why he will not say how to bet step by step?
The casinos WIIL change the rules.
Good for you.  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: cht on Jan 16, 09:47 PM 2018
* Does your system in any way change the ODDS of winning for the next spin?
(there is no grey answer. It's either yes or no, like the solution to a mathematical equation)

YES, I have it coded in excel.

* Is your system profitable without any progression?

YES

Good questions.

I play only at b&m casino.

I play only flat bet.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Jan 16, 10:04 PM 2018
Thanks but I was asking turbo. And if you mean testing with Excel RNG, it's very bad RNG. It will constantly have runs of repeating numbers because of the algorithm it uses (research it). You need proper RNG to test.

And besides, turbo has said many times his system works because the spins are "random", despite the meaning of "random" being completely unpredictable (impossible to change the odds).

So without realizing it he said spins are random, it's impossible to change the odds, and that's why my system works. THE PROBLEM IS YOU CANNOT POSSIBLY BEAT ROULETTE WITHOUT CHANGING THE ODDS. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE. IT'S THE SAME AS EARNING $100 IN A JOB, THEN HAVING $5 TAKEN AWAY FOR EVERY $100 EARNED, THEN EXPECTING TO BE LEFT WITH $100.

Really its like saying black is white, white is not black, black is nothing like black or white.

It is just completely backwards mixed with garbage and poor understanding.

I hate to bring bad news but rather than just call me a "naysayer", perhaps understand why I'm naysaying.

Again like I said, this is a lot like trying to logically prove Earth is flat. All the information just points the other way.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: TurboGenius on Jan 16, 10:32 PM 2018
I'll do my best to answer your specific questions Steve -
but.. I have to make sure my wording is how I want it so bear with me.
I know to you it's easy yes or no questions, but for me it's not.
I'll do the best I can without exposing details, fair enough.
I'll work on the reply and post tomorrow as time permits.
As far as nay-saying - I think the problem is that you see 1 spin as the game, like I've told "Sir Anyone" lots of times (and here too).
You know the payout for any location and you know the odds of any location appearing - since they don't match (house edge) for an individual spin - then that's all you need. If that were it, there would be no need to search for any other way to play and win. But like I posted in the 60's thread at the other forum (and the video has since been taken down.. shame) - You can absolutely have a completely random event that can't be predicted - yet you can collect data and suddenly, by looking at it a different way, the completely independent and random events are predictable - you can damn near set a watch to how accurate it becomes. It's STILL random, each reading is still completely independent from the last - each individual event cannot be predicted - and yet yes.. There is a way to chart it where it's as close to 100% accurate as you can get. It's not a miracle or mumbo jumbo - it's just that someone thought "What happens if I stop thinking of each individual event as being random and unpredictable and look at the big picture"
Anyway, I'll reply as I said to your points.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Jan 16, 10:40 PM 2018
I understand your thinking but it's like saying the more spins you see, the more even the about of reds/blacks will be - and that this is predictable.

Sure its predictable, but you are still not changing the odds at all.

It's like saying you predict the ball will eventually fall. But that doesn't at all help knowing where the ball will land.

anyway I'll wait for your other answers.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: nottophammer on Jan 17, 05:02 AM 2018
Morts #'s for today show no one downloaded. i'll wait 5 mins from post time of this reply and then download, then we'll see if wait for 20 spins and bet all repeats wins
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: nottophammer on Jan 17, 05:16 AM 2018
Job done. By betting all the repeats +14
(https://www.rouletteforum.cc/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pichost.org%2Fimages%2F2018%2F01%2F17%2Ftemp_433431.png&hash=08a50de7611a76d2a50fc29eae21bc0c) (http://www.pichost.org/image/yccQ)
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: nottophammer on Jan 17, 05:29 AM 2018
Off track here, but look at the check point
(https://www.rouletteforum.cc/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pichost.org%2Fimages%2F2018%2F01%2F17%2Ftemp_182165.png&hash=cb10063efde61ab577ad903ceae4803b) (http://www.pichost.org/image/yHFy)
Look in testing zone 100 days of mort.
I see and you lot should as well, see the spins come 11-20; 7 non-hit, then 21-30; 5 more non-hit, then 31-40; 3 more non-hit, the avg for 40 spins showing in mort 100, avg 15,42
So today +1, 16 non-hit came, meaning 14 repeats.

Or in those 14 repeats HOTTIES
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: fossell on Jan 17, 06:30 PM 2018
But like I posted in the 60's thread at the other forum (and the video has since been taken down.. shame)


;-)
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Madi on Jan 17, 07:00 PM 2018
Good to see this again after a year.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: TurboGenius on Jan 17, 07:43 PM 2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUvf6F-Whlc

Thanks Fossell ! I tried to look for a different upload somewhere when the link went dead but wasn't finding one. Thank you
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Jan 17, 10:23 PM 2018
God I love those old films. I love this one especially. Good advice. Could save your life. No nuke is a match for duck and cover:


The kid with a bike looks like he busted his teeth on the curb.

Also a good one:


More logical advice is get behind something very thick and dense, then when the aftershock passes, get the hell out of there to avoid radio fallout in the wind.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: vladir on Jan 18, 07:08 AM 2018
Spin of cycles of 37 spins over and over.
Near 24 numbers will appear once.
You can do this over and over and the total amount of numbers that appear will end up being 24-28.

I remember when I tested this kind of approaches, and I can say that, unfortunatly I have seen it go to 33. Very rare event, but it can happen.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: denzie on Jan 18, 12:46 PM 2018
Its time someone says it.... GO FURTHER THAN 37/38 SPINS !!!!!

Ask yourself these  questions...

Do i see repeaters everytime i play/test?

Do i see some sessions where they come late ?

Do i see sessions where they come on time ?

Do i see sessions where they come fast?

Your answer should be YES to all.

Now how to bet ?
Flat?
Negative progression?
+1 ?

Your answer will be different from one person to another. Mine is NO to all.

Now what if.....we get a fast coming session? I mean the hotties are hitting so good that with a agressive positive progression our br shoots up and up and up and up and up .......

Now what if...we see that often? (Or often enough)

How would you devide your br?
(Lets say 1000 units)
How much would you bring for 1 session ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
(10 ? 50? 100? 200 ? 300 ? 500? 1000? )

 :thumbsup:
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Madi on Jan 18, 01:51 PM 2018
What if  u see a late coming and signicant br drawdown.! Would u take a loss or have something to pull it up?
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: denzie on Jan 18, 03:20 PM 2018
What if  u see a late coming and signicant br drawdown.! Would u take a loss or have something to pull it up?

My dd would be small. Nothing to worry about.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: cht on Jan 18, 03:36 PM 2018
Thanks but I was asking turbo. And if you mean testing with Excel RNG, it's very bad RNG. It will constantly have runs of repeating numbers because of the algorithm it uses (research it). You need proper RNG to test.

And besides, turbo has said many times his system works because the spins are "random", despite the meaning of "random" being completely unpredictable (impossible to change the odds).

So without realizing it he said spins are random, it's impossible to change the odds, and that's why my system works. THE PROBLEM IS YOU CANNOT POSSIBLY BEAT ROULETTE WITHOUT CHANGING THE ODDS. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE. IT'S THE SAME AS EARNING $100 IN A JOB, THEN HAVING $5 TAKEN AWAY FOR EVERY $100 EARNED, THEN EXPECTING TO BE LEFT WITH $100.

Really its like saying black is white, white is not black, black is nothing like black or white.

It is just completely backwards mixed with garbage and poor understanding.

I hate to bring bad news but rather than just call me a "naysayer", perhaps understand why I'm naysaying.

Again like I said, this is a lot like trying to logically prove Earth is flat. All the information just points the other way.
It's a 1million games stats and not based on  excel rng. No worries, the test is very reliable done by the best roulette statistician.

Even you or Tom, Dick or Harry who do this test will still get the same numbers. Whether you use live spins, rng or excel rng you will still get close to the ballpark numbers.

Yes, the odds are changed. Anyone who sees the math model will easily recognise the odds are clearly changed.  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: denzie on Jan 18, 03:37 PM 2018
(+1 hidden) .... hi Steve
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Madi on Jan 18, 03:45 PM 2018
My dd would be small. Nothing to worry about.

So u take a loss. 
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: denzie on Jan 18, 03:47 PM 2018
So u take a loss.

Yes sir  :)
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Jan 18, 06:00 PM 2018
CHT, I simply don't believe you or perhaps you've made a mistake. If it's all correct and you have the HG, really I hope you destroy the casinos.

Why don't I think it's possible? Because the principles you're talking about are not valid. I know this from my own testing, and a lot more extensive testing from many professionals in the industry. Also statisticians etc. It is not hard to run automated software tests that check a principle over even billions of spins.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: TurboGenius on Jan 18, 07:09 PM 2018
* Does your system in any way change the ODDS of winning for the next spin?
(there is no grey answer. It's either yes or no, like the solution to a mathematical equation)

If I take that literally, then no ? This isn't some yes or no question as you worded it - I win at a rate higher than the odds of the location(s) I'm betting on showing. This means if a location were to win 1:37 for example and I win 1:20 then I've changed the math of the game. (that's an example which means nothing in how I play but describes how the math can be changed).

* Is your system profitable without any progression?

I play with a progression, progressions aren't the enemy and only amplify whatever is happening. If you're playing a method that loses - you'll lose more, if you're playing a winning method, you'll win more. In a typical system using a progression just means digging into a bottomless hole at some point and small wins that don't recover. That's not what I'm doing.

* Exactly what testing have you done, and with how many spins?
(for example, parx and with how many spins, and rng from what source, and how many spins)

I don't have exact numbers for you there, in RX perhaps 30k spins. At Park online I'm logged at 12,225 total played spins. Live play in the casino - around 500 total. Recently I started checking out "Roulette Simulator" after seeing it mentioned here - 46 total sessions and already at 9th on the leader board (seems that they never remove anyone - the guy in first played a few spins and had a good run but I'll easily pass him). 133k in profits. 460 players ? It's only been a few days - I can reach #1 pretty quickly. I don't expect it to count as proof of anything though, even though it keeps a good count of your wins and losses and the table maximums make it hard to jump up quickly.
(https://s17.postimg.org/khk13y2lr/5a60e89c.jpg)

* The only results I've ever seen you publish are either from parx, or short term roulette xtreme charts. Regarding the roulette xtreme charts, why are they only short term results? (like 60 or so spins from memory)?

You only need to test a small number of spins, there's no need for a large chart. This all depends on what you're betting on and how - and how many variables there are.
For example, if you're betting straight up number(s) you'll need to test an incredibly large amount of spins compared to a person who's method is only on Red and Black. There are only so many possible outcomes that can happen with the RB person, so they don't need as many spins of testing. Make sense ?

* What do you feel is the statistical relevance of so few spins in the roulette extreme charts?

Same as above. I can cover what can possibly happen in a much shorter number of spins.

* How much have you won in REAL MONEY with your system?

I'm not answering that for obvious reasons. Since anything I say wouldn't be verified regardless in a way that would matter as proof - it doesn't matter.

* One day you were boasting about how much you won at parx, then the next you say you lost it all... INTENTIONALLY. Exactly would you do this?

Why would I do this ? I think that's what you meant. I did it to show that "everyone doesn't win regardless of how you play" which was a claim. That everyone wins and it's rigged for people to win. So I took a huge amount - told everyone ahead of time that I was going to lose it - and lost it. Nothing magical happened, I didn't just win and win regardless of how I bet. Seemed pretty accurate to me.

* Do you still claim that parx is not at all a rigged game?
(most recently you said the only difference is real casinos take longer to win at)

I'm still confident that it's not rigged whatsoever. I've put the spins into RX manually - it's not showing anything that would make it appear rigged.
 
* Exactly WHY does it take longer to win at real casinos?

Because I can "Turbo Mode" at Parx online and in the casino I will only play at a table for real money. That means a lot of waiting for spins to complete - certainly not 9 or 10 per minute like I can with the game site.

* Exactly why havent you won millions with real online casinos?
(its very easy to use another player's account to bypass USA restrictions, and you could win millions)

It's not my goal. I have an account at Golden Nugget (very very few onlines are legal in NJ - that's the only one with a live wheel and dealer/video feed). I'm also not going to play anywhere that I have to win 20x or 50x my deposit etc etc nonsense. And won't take any bonus whatsoever. It might become a good option in the near future but as we all know - they can just not pay out or claim a TOS violation since most all of them say that using systems or methods isn't permitted. I'll stick to sitting in the casino at the table for now.

* Your current system is about hot numbers. Have you ever claimed you had the HG and that it was based about cold numbers?

I probably did at one point. I'm sure there's a thread or two to be found when I was on a "cold" kick. The point was that when cold numbers appear finally - they appear very close to what's expected or they won't repeat as being long term cold numbers. This is actually true and It works great. It's takes patience and more time than I would want to dedicate to it since it's incredibly better to use hot numbers.

I'm sure this aren't the best answers but.. there it is lol. I reserve the right to update or modify any of them if I made a mistake explaining or wasn't clear enough.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: cht on Jan 18, 07:48 PM 2018
CHT, I simply don't believe you or perhaps you've made a mistake. If it's all correct and you have the HG, really I hope you destroy the casinos.

If you have not seen the model, I don't expect you to believe. I can explain it simply with examples but that will give it away to those who truly understand math and stats. TG has come close to give the explanation, he has done it a few times already.

If you don't change the odds there's ZERO chance of it to win itlr, no arguments there.

And YES the odds is changed without doubt. I know I have a no chance to lose system itlr, you guys call it HG whatever. I'm now working out a practical model to play at b&m casino, that's where I am at now.


Why don't I think it's possible? Because the principles you're talking about are not valid. I know this from my own testing, and a lot more extensive testing from many professionals in the industry. Also statisticians etc. It is not hard to run automated software tests that check a principle over even billions of spins.

You know it's not hard to run test. Anyone with rx coding skills can do it.

BUT very few understands the math. I mean very few. If I go into details, again I will unintentionally give it away. So your tests is invalid and useless, don't waste your time.

Perhaps I'll venture this far, this math is right under your nose all this while. How about if I told you you don't need to run the tests, you just need to understand the math ? It still come back to the math,
without which the odds will not change.
Btw I'm making all my posts from the casino resort room.  :xd:
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Jan 18, 08:02 PM 2018
All anyone needs to know if something is false is to know one crtical element of the system's approach is correct. It is a "0" in the equation, and the result is therefore a "0".

Its like having a variety of variables that determine the winning number. If there is anything in the required chain of events that is completely unpredictable, then an edge is impossible. It's the case with any kind of play including roulette computers.

And in this case, the "0" is that hot numbers do not have any influence on future spins. How do I know this? Because you can check:

1. Any combination of spins that makes one or more numbers "hot"

2. Correlate the "hot numbers" to see if they have any bearing on future spins - either relatively near, or distant future.

Looking at a broader cycle is no different. Turbo talks short term. He isnt spending days at a time in casinos. So its even easier to test for short term patterns. I've done that, and looked at centuries worth of spins. It can be done in short periods with a computer.

The result is hot numbers are meaningless. They are no different to cold numbers, or any other combination of numbers. I have left automated software on for extended periods just checking every possible combination, like a computer decoding or trying to hack encryption. The principles can be tested with fewer numbers like say a wheel that had just 4 numbers. The principle same all the same though.

And again the result is hot numbers are meaningless unless there is a bias or underlying physical reason. Its not just me who has tested it thoroughly.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Jan 18, 10:02 PM 2018
This isn't some yes or no question as you worded it

You either do or dont change the odds. Its like you are or aren't pregnant. There's no "maybe". From what you said, you are changing the odds, without directly saying that.

I cant find you on that simulator. I assume you deleted your account.

You only need to test a small number of spins, there's no need for a large chart. This all depends on what you're betting on and how - and how many variables there are. For example, if you're betting straight up number(s) you'll need to test an incredibly large amount of spins compared to a person who's method is only on Red and Black. There are only so many possible outcomes that can happen with the RB person, so they don't need as many spins of testing. Make sense ?

No it doesn't make sense because short term testing tells us nothing. It does not matter what you're betting and how. If you are looking purely at spin outcomes, with no other validating information, short term data is meaningless.

As it is now, it's unclear if you change the odds, and you say short term tests are all you need, although you have tested a significant amount of spins (still inadequate because even random bets can achieve good results over that many spins) on a game that's clearly rigged although you say it's not.

This is getting nowhere. I would like to believe you but I still cant see a valid point. Everything points the other way. Anyway if you have the HG, take the casinos for all you can.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: denzie on Jan 19, 04:59 AM 2018
Now .... from spin 1600 to 2200 your in the hole. That are 600 spins. That are 3 to 6 sessions at the casino. So does it win each and every time ?
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Madi on Jan 19, 05:10 AM 2018
No. If u consider a session with short number of spin . But if u consider a  session with 30 days period then yes.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: denzie on Jan 19, 05:21 AM 2018
No. If u consider a session with short number of spin . But if u consider a  session with 30 days period then yes.

Well said.  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: denzie on Jan 19, 05:26 AM 2018

How would you devide your br?
(Lets say 1000 units)
How much would you bring for 1 session ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
(10 ? 50? 100? 200 ? 300 ? 500? 1000? )

 :thumbsup:

Ill ask it again ....
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Madi on Jan 19, 05:43 AM 2018
You already know this . Last thing that is not solved is when we know we r going to be in loss is there any way to pull it up rather than taking loss. I believe tg has a way to do this. And this why he goes up and up in parx.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: denzie on Jan 19, 06:01 AM 2018
You already know this . Last thing that is not solved is when we know we r going to be in loss is there any way to pull it up rather than taking loss. I believe tg has a way to do this. And this why he goes up and up in parx.

You stil dont get it. But you will soon. He did go down in parx too. Only difference is the speed for a session. There you can have a 600 spin hole and fix it and have a new high br dayly. 

In a real casino that wouldnt be possible coz the time between spins
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: nottophammer on Jan 19, 06:15 AM 2018
In a real casino that wouldnt be possible coz the time between spins
Thats a mr J sentence
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: TurboGenius on Jan 19, 06:20 AM 2018
You either do or dont change the odds. Its like you are or aren't pregnant. There's no "maybe". From what you said, you are changing the odds, without directly saying that.
I cant find you on that simulator. I assume you deleted your account.

My account is set to private. If it were public then anyone who wanted to could "re-watch" every spin played and where/how I bet. If you looked at the board then you would see the skip in positions from 8-10 because the 9th place person (me) is set to private.
(https://s17.postimg.org/hw14ulkvj/5a618c1f.jpg)
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: TurboGenius on Jan 19, 06:52 AM 2018
No it doesn't make sense because short term testing tells us nothing. It does not matter what you're betting and how. If you are looking purely at spin outcomes, with no other validating information, short term data is meaningless.

Think of it this way - if you play straight ups, you have 37 (or 38) possible outcomes.
For multiple spins you have to test a lot of spins because of the possible combinations that can happen. Now someone who only uses Red and Black only has two possible outcomes - there's only so many possibilities that can happen.
So both players on the same table need different amount of spins in order to test what their system will do.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: vladir on Jan 19, 06:54 AM 2018
Sorry to interrupt, but what is "parx"? Is it a website with roullete?If yes, can someone point me a link? Thank you.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Blood Angel on Jan 19, 07:02 AM 2018
Sorry to interrupt, but what is "parx"? Is it a website with roullete?If yes, can someone point me a link? Thank you.
https://www.parxonline.com/slots.shtml
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: denzie on Jan 19, 07:51 AM 2018
Where can i find this "roulette simulator?

And is it legit?
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Tinsoldiers on Jan 19, 08:27 AM 2018
You can find it here. https://roulette-simulator.info

What do you mean by legit? You can try playing and there is nothing that suggests it should be rigged.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Jan 19, 08:30 AM 2018
Looks like a similar game to MPR with leaderboard, but without live chat. Its hardly a simulator though.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Tinsoldiers on Jan 19, 08:30 AM 2018
total sessions and already at 9th on the leader board (xxxx but I'll easily pass him). Xxx only been a few days - I can reach #1 pretty quickly.
These words say a lot about you. Nice.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: denzie on Jan 19, 01:08 PM 2018
First session was great...
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: denzie on Jan 19, 01:20 PM 2018
Anyway it doesnt mean much but it showed what happens if the hotties are early. Made some bankrollS in 1 session
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: maestro on Jan 19, 01:53 PM 2018
Quote
Looks like a similar game to MPR with leaderboard, but without live chat. Its hardly a simulator though.

it says uses latest algo for random...does yours do it...
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: denzie on Jan 19, 02:00 PM 2018
Maestro...its actually better. It shows your sessions in Nice graphs. Fun to play and no waiting.

Yup no chat but is that a must ?

No offence Steve...yours is ok too.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: maestro on Jan 19, 02:52 PM 2018
shuold have some charge just to motivate code writers..but hey hoo
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: ArmitageShanks on Jan 19, 03:17 PM 2018
Don't know how reliable roulette simulator is but love the graphs you get! Ive been working hard on a system with small drawdowns as no matter what people think of Mr J i agree i want a system thats wins in a b&M. I could never play with some of the crazy progressions or down swings i see! i look at some and you'd be 10/20 grand in the hole if playing here in london or betting thousands on a single number if even allowed! A session might be a few visits but what if that huge down swing is on your first visit?
The graph just reflects how the systems been doing for weeks in B&M and online but still not sure this site is reliable and might try parx again but my current way wont give me the quick huge wins the last did, i might even still hold the record for the amount won in a week (and lost  :thumbsup: ).
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Madi on Jan 19, 03:24 PM 2018
Damn good. Quick and easy. These r just for practice. Real play b$m no argument.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: ArmitageShanks on Jan 19, 03:35 PM 2018
Yeah in B&M ive never gone over 40 spins as thats about my limit ('m too easily distracted) but on line ive gone nearer 90 with similar results, of course over millions of spins it will fail  O0
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Jan 19, 03:55 PM 2018
MPR is made however members want it. The chat window and same spins for everyone is a completely different approach. If you play another game, I'm not offended... you cheating, lying, infidel! Your mouse is clicking and clicking on another server's interface. Dont you know how hurtful that is???? I hope you catch a ctd virus.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: TurboGenius on Jan 19, 04:40 PM 2018
So anything that works is met with:

"Not a real simulator"
"Not enough spins"
"Rigged for players to win"
etc.
Regardless of the RNG or how the spins are picked.
And if it does work - "RNG isn't the same as Live wheel spins" (even though we all know that no one can tell the difference between the two)
Or if it is live play - not enough spins, a lifetime of daily play is good for testing, etc.

It's amazing. Reminds me of politics - It's ok to have your cake and eat it too as long as it supports your beliefs.
A RNG where the player wins isn't a legit "test" so use another RNG and test 1 billion spins to make sure it loses - both using RNG (maybe even the same one).
If it wins in live play (slow.... impossible to test anything at that speed) - it's not enough spins - the wheel is possibly bias, etc. No credit there for results.
So there's no point really - that's where it's "going in circles", no evidence is good for proof unless it shows something losing (and only then it's not Rigged, it's accurate results). I don't get it.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: ArmitageShanks on Jan 19, 04:48 PM 2018
And the last tonight to finish that off. Hopefully work again tomorrow in B&M.
Thanks to Turbo(and others) for starting me on repeats!
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Jan 19, 04:59 PM 2018
Quote
"Not a real simulator"
"Not enough spins"
"Rigged for players to win"

So according to you, mathematically rigged games are ok. And  statistically insignificant amount of spins is ok. Maybe that's why 99% of your play doesn't involve real money.

My beliefs don't change reality. Neither do yours. I remember now you say your system works because spins are random. That's a huge contradiction. Random is random is permanent negative expectation.

And actually you can tell the difference between rng and real spins, with enough spins

In the end i measure a systems  success based on both appropriate testing, and how much real money it has made.

It's strange. The whole community of professional players, the ones who make the money, have been through the system period and know repeaters is nonsense. The clues are all there. Anyone can do proper testing. But most players don't, which is why they are stuck in fallacy without a clue they are.

Resolve it easily. Win your millions. When is the last time you read about system players winning millions?
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: maestro on Jan 19, 05:29 PM 2018
Quote
MPR is made however members want it.


i never wanted some low life c*** to be able to log in my account and admin on the site to not give a shittt...
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Jan 19, 05:33 PM 2018
Maestro, calm down. Nobody has logged in your account except you. The problem is something simple like you logging in on another device. So all you need to do is clear browser data and log in on your new device. Look into things more before pointing fingers.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: maestro on Jan 19, 06:28 PM 2018
Quote
Nobody has logged in your account except you.


not true...i did reset bank and had 1000 since then i have not play and is not 1000 now ...as admin on site you should delete account being used by someone else...
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Jan 19, 06:35 PM 2018
 that is probably because the server was restored. Anyway more forward. Let me know if there are any problems
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: cht on Jan 19, 09:20 PM 2018
About proof, there's no proof that's good enough for both systems and AP in online environment.

However, genuine(not fake as in photoshop) results gives a good indication of the potential. The rest comes from the basis behind the system.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Tinsoldiers on Jan 20, 02:36 AM 2018
So there's no point really - that's where it's "going in circles", no evidence is good for proof unless it shows something losing (and only then it's not Rigged, it's accurate results). I don't get it.
Why are you so obliged to provide a proof?

SomeOne interested in your methods will follow your methods irrespective of a proof. One who doesn’t or one who doubts, the proofs will never be sufficient as there is no clear mathematical proof that you have provided for your method apart from stating some facts. No one apart from you can prove/disprove whether your method works as it is private to you. Both sides are fair. To be fair to everyone, you will have to accept when people say repeaters don’t work because that is how much we know. You can’t expect yourselves to be opening peoples eyes by putting more fog in front of them.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: 777 on Jan 20, 08:39 AM 2018

How would you devide your br?
(Lets say 1000 units)
How much would you bring for 1 session ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
(10 ? 50? 100? 200 ? 300 ? 500? 1000? )



500 pr session. thats what i have experienced works best for a session
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: TurboGenius on Jan 20, 08:41 AM 2018
Why are you so obliged to provide a proof?
SomeOne interested in your methods will follow your methods irrespective of a proof. One who doesn’t or one who doubts, the proofs will never be sufficient as there is no clear mathematical proof that you have provided for your method apart from stating some facts. No one apart from you can prove/disprove whether your method works as it is private to you. Both sides are fair. To be fair to everyone, you will have to accept when people say repeaters don’t work because that is how much we know. You can’t expect yourselves to be opening peoples eyes by putting more fog in front of them.

Very well said.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: denzie on Jan 21, 07:02 AM 2018
Maybe go back to the basics.... the 37/38 people walk into the casino stuff...

Bet each numbers as it shows up.... use a 1/2/4/8/16/.... on a hit....

Do some testing to figure out which br to bring and how much you could win/lose per session( important)

Later cut down some numbers. How? Random choice? Or maybe just maybe play those with small gaps between hits.  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: TurboGenius on Jan 21, 08:21 AM 2018
Maybe go back to the basics.... the 37/38 people walk into the casino stuff...

Very good advice
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: maestro on Jan 21, 08:28 AM 2018
Quote
Later cut down some numbers. How?


simply out of numbers with above standart deviation if you pick numbers in 2 dozens or two colums you will end up i guess with 60% of the hotties and if you pick only one doz or colum you should get 33% of hot numbers
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: denzie on Jan 21, 10:23 AM 2018

simply out of numbers with above standart deviation if you pick numbers in 2 dozens or two colums you will end up i guess with 60% of the hotties and if you pick only one doz or colum you should get 33% of hot numbers

Thats a way yes.  Never tried that though.  I prefer the gap way  ;)
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: denzie on Jan 21, 11:42 AM 2018
If we can "predict" X amount of numbers will remain "hot" from one cycle through the next cycle - we can benefit from betting them with a progression to cover the losses from the numbers that "don't" appear as hot in the following cycle.

Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: JimmieB on Jan 21, 03:24 PM 2018

simply out of numbers with above standart deviation if you pick numbers in 2 dozens or two colums you will end up i guess with 60% of the hotties and if you pick only one doz or colum you should get 33% of hot numbers

I'm sure Turbo posted something similar to this in the past...sit at the table and whatever dozen you are closest too (easy reach), simply start playing the numbers that have showed, and add a chip to any that win. At the end of the 37/38 spins reduce the number of chips on the numbers by 1, and start a new cycle on the same dozen. I think this is the basics of a really good system, and easy to play in a B&M, although, I'm sure there is most likely something a bit more to it, or, it can be tweaked??

Maybe a should post this in the repeats thread ;)
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: denzie on Jan 21, 03:58 PM 2018
I'm sure Turbo posted something similar to this in the past...sit at the table and whatever dozen you are closest too (easy reach), simply start playing the numbers that have showed, and add a chip to any that win. At the end of the 37/38 spins reduce the number of chips on the numbers by 1, and start a new cycle on the same dozen. I think this is the basics of a really good system, and easy to play in a B&M, although, I'm sure there is most likely something a bit more to it, or, it can be tweaked??

Maybe a should post this in the repeats thread ;)

This is been coded... and well...  :-\
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: cht on Jan 21, 06:18 PM 2018
At 37 spins, unhits = total repeats
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Madi on Jan 21, 06:30 PM 2018
At 37 spins, unhits = total repeats

Is that a joke??
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: TurboGenius on Jan 21, 08:06 PM 2018
 8)
Another "rigged" game is going to fall lol.
104 winning sessions, 4 days of work.
Getting to 2nd was hard enough, getting that guy who played only 3 sessions out of first is going to be hard work. I'm game.

(https://s17.postimg.org/ayuk57lnz/5a64ef35.jpg)

Someone named cammy162 is actually doing something I used to do years ago and it's working out pretty well for them. The problem is that it will lose big eventually, but for now it's working - might work long enough to climb the board more.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Jan 21, 10:01 PM 2018
getting that guy who played only 3 sessions out of first is going to be hard work

You mean he bet really big and got lucky. Its not that hard to rank high. Thats why MPR has a better ranking algorithm.

Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: denzie on Jan 22, 03:28 AM 2018
You mean he bet really big and got lucky. Its not that hard to rank high. Thats why MPR has a better ranking algorithm.

So yeah he got Lucky but....he wont stay that lucky. If TG keeps winning he will pass him. TG is right though...nobody can pass him. Including me or you or that sir anyone...

Fun game or not....he did it again  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Taotie on Jan 22, 03:40 AM 2018
He did it all in one big lucky betting session, and it's actually fun to watch.

Some super scary bets in there, some ridiculous unworldly table limits, and no time restrictions combine to rise him to the top. Awesome!

I hope this link works for those interested in checking it out..


https://roulette-simulator.info/game/b868a75cbe1372040841ba8235b4f070
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: cht on Jan 22, 03:42 AM 2018
Great job TG!  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: maestro on Jan 22, 04:39 AM 2018
Quote
He did it all in one big lucky betting session,

luck is important...lol...8000 to 16000 on straights >:D
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Jan 23, 02:57 AM 2018
Turbo, if your results aren't luck, passing #1 would just be a matter of time. Not difficult as you say.

Anyone here could match your results so far. Your activity shows as lower than the lucky winner. That suggests you win big quickly too. Then had a series of smaller games. You could reset the winnings easily. Anyone can to make them look more successful than they are. This can't be faked in mpr because of the win rate. Its easily faked in this other site.

Im not being negative. I'm being realistic. Why not keep showing everyone how wrong i am?
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: sentinel3 on Jan 23, 03:02 AM 2018
Turbo, if your results aren't luck, passing #1 would just be a matter of time. Not difficult as you say.

Anyone here could match your results so far. Your activity shows as lower than the lucky winner. That suggests you win big quickly too. Then had a series of smaller games. You could reset the winnings easily. Anyone can to make them look more successful than they are. This can't be faked in mpr because of the win rate. Its easily faked in this other site.

Im not being negative. I'm being realistic. Why not keep showing everyone how wrong i am?
Steve I dont know about wrong or right. But im still waiting for you to tell me how to take 50k plus off online casinos without getting shown the door.

If you can do that. I will give you a chunk of the winnings.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: vladir on Jan 23, 04:30 AM 2018
Steve I dont know about wrong or right. But im still waiting for you to tell me how to take 50k plus off online casinos without getting shown the door.

If you can do that. I will give you a chunk of the winnings.

If you have a wining method, it's easy. Dont withdraw winings directly, instead play them on slots (the jackpot ones) and aim for a big win. When you win big, withdraw.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: denzie on Jan 23, 02:02 PM 2018
Well i pushed it to far...thats the only difference between fun and real money...I just try bit to much instead of cashing in
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: denzie on Jan 23, 02:04 PM 2018
TG can i ask you...how far you push it ? After the big one hits...few spins more and cash in for the day?
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Roulettebeater on Jan 23, 02:11 PM 2018
If you have a wining method, it's easy. Dont withdraw winings directly, instead play them on slots (the jackpot ones) and aim for a big win. When you win big, withdraw.

You funny guy!
on slots? so that you lose them !

If you win try the tip from steven
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Jan 23, 02:28 PM 2018
Walking out with $50k winnings is not a problem. You'll probably have to get a check, record your name etc. But no problem. You'll only gte problems if you are doing it all the time, then your style of play and how you won will be looked at. In any case, it is not hard to avoid detection, but ultimately it limits your winnings. Eg with roulette computers you could theoretically win $1m in a day starting with $10,000. But then they will look at everything you did to win. And you would have needed a lot of spins to get to $1m. That will reveal what you are doing. Instead, more realistically, you'll need to bet just a few spins so it looks like short term luck, and win perhaps only $5000 in  session (in a typical smaller casino). If done properly, on larger limit tables, $30k in a session is ok if done right - and it still looks like luck. Anyway there's a lot more to avoiding detection but its not something to discuss here.

Turbo, are you able to at least show us your session bankroll charts that all lead up to your current bankroll?

I was testing the other day starting from $3000 bankroll and got to $300,000 just with random bets and deadly progression. It wouldnt be hard to get to #1 on the leaderboard of that  game - it just takes time and a lot of resets so nobody knows how much you also lost. Someone only needs to code a RX system with crazy progression, and use a combination of bets around a single number to get extend table betting limits. Then you need only that number, or numbers around it, to hit a few times. With the strong progression, it might take around 5 minutes to do. Anyway a well coded RX system will show this. Again it isnt possible on MPR because we track the lifetime win rate.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Roulettebeater on Jan 23, 02:55 PM 2018
Walking out with $50k winnings is not a problem. You'll probably have to get a check, record your name etc. But no problem. You'll only gte problems if you are doing it all the time, then your style of play and how you won will be looked at. In any case, it is not hard to avoid detection, but ultimately it limits your winnings. Eg with roulette computers you could theoretically win $1m in a day starting with $10,000. But then they will look at everything you did to win. And you would have needed a lot of spins to get to $1m. That will reveal what you are doing. Instead, more realistically, you'll need to bet just a few spins so it looks like short term luck, and win perhaps only $5000 in  session (in a typical smaller casino). If done properly, on larger limit tables, $30k in a session is ok if done right - and it still looks like luck. Anyway there's a lot more to avoiding detection but its not something to discuss here.

Turbo, are you able to at least show us your session bankroll charts that all lead up to your current bankroll?

I was testing the other day starting from $3000 bankroll and got to $300,000 just with random bets and deadly progression. It wouldnt be hard to get to #1 on the leaderboard of that  game - it just takes time and a lot of resets so nobody knows how much you also lost. Someone only needs to code a RX system with crazy progression, and use a combination of bets around a single number to get extend table betting limits. Then you need only that number, or numbers around it, to hit a few times. With the strong progression, it might take around 5 minutes to do. Anyway a well coded RX system will show this. Again it isnt possible on MPR because we track the lifetime win rate.

Are you saying that turbo has lady luck always with him ?
I dunno yet how Turbo plays, but geeks rule the world these days and he might be one  :)
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: maestro on Jan 23, 03:22 PM 2018
Quote
I was testing the other day starting from $3000 bankroll and got to $300,000 just with random bets and deadly progression


16000 on numbers....flat
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Jan 23, 04:02 PM 2018
Are you saying that turbo has lady luck always with him ?

Parx is rigged, and I explained the math to prove it before.

I suspect with this new simulator it is short term sessions with very strong progression. I did it myself in a short time to $300k starting with $3k. Anyone can do this and reset sessions until they get a good run, then do a number of small sessions to manipulate the states to look like long term winnings. See what I wrote. Thats why I asked for the long term trend chart. And its why MPR works different using the lifetime win rate.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: TurboGenius on Jan 23, 06:44 PM 2018
Turbo, if your results aren't luck, passing #1 would just be a matter of time. Not difficult as you say.
Anyone here could match your results so far. Your activity shows as lower than the lucky winner. That suggests you win big quickly too. Then had a series of smaller games. You could reset the winnings easily.

I've NEVER reset my balance once. I'm at 116 winning "sessions" (which is thousands of spins) in a row with a balance of $354,688.00 in second place still (until I take over first).

Parx is rigged, and I explained the math to prove it before.
I suspect with this new simulator it is short term sessions with very strong progression. I did it myself in a short time to $300k starting with $3k. Anyone can do this and reset sessions until they get a good run, then do a number of small sessions to manipulate the states to look like long term winnings.

Anyone can win at Parx, Anyone can win on this Simulator, Anyone can win on rng with RX -
It's amazing though - NO ONE is there other than me. It's amazing to keep reading (considering how much work it actually takes) that anyone can do it. People are trying but they aren't making it - lots of resets, lots of negative balances, etc. But here we are.
I have Zero resets. If I did I would drop off the leaderboard and have to work my way up again - which clearly I haven't done.
"It's easy to do, just do A, B, C and anyone can win".
Why doesn't "anyone" pass me ? You can claim everything is rigged all day, then it's rigged for "everyone", not just me. Yet somehow by some miracle only I can figure out to win.
Shrugs and sighs.
Sure someone could bet the max of 3k on a spin and keep resetting - their balance will show that (I hope). I see people 400k in the hole and still working on winning, good for them - as long as they learn along the way what doesn't work and they make changes to how they bet. There's no need for resetting or anything to be "fixed" when the math is in the player's favor. It's really that simple.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: nottophammer on Jan 23, 06:52 PM 2018
TG what have you set bet limit on single number, at roulette simulator. Thanks
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Tinsoldiers on Jan 23, 07:26 PM 2018
(until I take over first).
Why would you want to do that?
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: TurboGenius on Jan 23, 07:33 PM 2018
TG what have you set bet limit on single number, at roulette simulator. Thanks

I take into consideration the table limits of whatever game I'm playing.
At Parx for example, on the Roulette Royale - there's practically no limits.
They do limit the max bet being one that doesn't allow a HUGE win (millions),
but for all sake and purposes this limit is never needed. However the min bet is
$100.00...... it's incredibly hard with the 100 min to "win" because even with a 3k daily log in bonus, you're looking at 30 spins betting that if you only played a single number. On the Euro wheel, the max on any number is 100.00 and the min is 10.00 - again, with these limits in place it's very hard to achieve a win long term (despite the claims of it being rigged, etc).
At the Simulator site - you are maxed out with a 3k bankroll, regardless of how much you have as a balance. (shame). The min and max are 1.00 to 250.00 on a number. Much more playable but the amount for a bankroll you get (3k) also limits how you can bet.
My point is - you have to know the lower and upper limits for the locations that you plan to bet on. Then you need to set out a plan that stays within those limits - each site/game is different (unlike in the casino where the limits can change depending on time of day or day of week, but they are still predictable).
So once you know the range that you can bet for the locations that you are betting, (assuming you are using a system that works) - you can set up your progression accordingly.
If you believe "Anything that isn't flat bet is a loser" - then you're wrong.
Even without the house edge, you could theoretically even have a math edge and still lose because the worst case scenario can happen.
Sorry if this isn't specific but it's still important for people to read.
Know your table limits (game or real) - know what your method/system can do and then plan accordingly.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: TurboGenius on Jan 23, 07:37 PM 2018
Why would you want to do that?

I'm motivated to win. Losing is never an option. If it takes me a while to get there I'm ok with that. I just don't like to lose, no one does - play mode, real, you name it.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Jan 23, 08:10 PM 2018
Again turbo can you please post the chart for the whole bankroll trend?

Also yes its rigged for everyone on parx. That's why there are lots of millionaires there.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: TurboGenius on Jan 23, 08:32 PM 2018
That's why there are lots of millionaires there.

No, as I explained before - when you have a $100.00 min chip value on roulette - there are going to be huge winners. You'll see a min win of $3,500.00 for crying out loud lol.
The slot machines that those "millionaires" are winning on (look them up) are $300.00 min per pull. There's going to be HUGE payouts (note on both of these situations, almost everyone will lose and they do.....)
Verdict - basing "rigged" on the money people have won is wrong. If the min bet was $1.00 for example, or the slots were $0.25 per pull - you would never see anyone with giant balances. It's just math.
an apple that cost 1.00 to someone who has no money is a lot.
an apple that cost $100.00 to a millionaire is just a apple. There's no difference.
It's only how the observer sees it that makes your opinion seem valid.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: jefra on Jan 24, 02:36 AM 2018
Well said Turbo !!!
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: denzie on Jan 24, 03:53 AM 2018
TG what have you set bet limit on single number, at roulette simulator. Thanks

Good question as he changed his progression a few times in his posts.

Started with 1/5 or 5/25 or 25/100
He said we could use 1/2/3/4/5/6/...

Then 5/10/15/20/.... (last graphs played with this)

 :question:
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Jan 24, 04:09 AM 2018
You missed my point. You say parx isnt rigged when it is. The math is clear. And real casinos dont make so many millionaires. Yes slot limits are higher, which is why most higher ranked players are slot players. But its easy to use bet combinations to extend roulette table betting limits.

Are you going to publish the bankroll trend charts?
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: denzie on Jan 24, 04:11 AM 2018

Are you going to publish the bankroll trend charts?

 :thumbsup:
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: TurboGenius on Jan 24, 06:18 AM 2018
Are you going to publish the bankroll trend charts?

Of course, but I'm just enjoying the fact that you keep asking.
As if it's going to show something other than what I've been saying ?
It's going to show a climbing chart since I started isn't it ?
Is that going to convince you 1% that I'm telling the truth, or will you just
look at the chart and come up with another "rigged" statement ?
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: TurboGenius on Jan 24, 07:18 AM 2018
Good question as he changed his progression a few times in his posts.
Started with 1/5 or 5/25 or 25/100
He said we could use 1/2/3/4/5/6/...
Then 5/10/15/20/.... (last graphs played with this)

My point is - you have to know the lower and upper limits for the locations that you plan to bet on. Then you need to set out a plan that stays within those limits - each site/game is different (unlike in the casino where the limits can change depending on time of day or day of week, but they are still predictable).
So once you know the range that you can bet for the locations that you are betting, (assuming you are using a system that works) - you can set up your progression accordingly.

Wow, that copy/paste ie. repeating myself sure saves time. I don't have to type.
If the table limits are 1-10 (like the euro wheel at Parx) then surely I wouldn't be able to use 5/25/100 or anything that went beyond 10.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: denzie on Jan 24, 07:34 AM 2018
Wow, that copy/paste ie. repeating myself sure saves time. I don't have to type.
If the table limits are 1-10 (like the euro wheel at Parx) then surely I wouldn't be able to use 5/25/100 or anything that went beyond 10.

Alright thx.  That answered a question that was in my mind for months  :thumbsup:

A aggressive short progression it shall be  :)
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Roulettebeater on Jan 24, 02:43 PM 2018
Steve, Denzie

are you still interested to see the chart of the bankrol's trend?
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: denzie on Jan 25, 02:53 AM 2018
Steve, Denzie

are you still interested to see the chart of the bankrol's trend?

Sure
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: poobear on Jan 25, 04:32 AM 2018
You've never been so cagey about any of your systems Turbo.......
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Jan 28, 11:40 PM 2018
Of course, but I'm just enjoying the fact that you keep asking.

I'm not interested in childish games. I asked because it would help determine if your wins were gradual, or sudden. Again, anyone can win $300k starting with $3k with the approach I explained. Then they'd play a series of shorter sessions which makes it look like they've won from a larger series of sessions. The result would be high bankroll but with lower activity stars - just like in your screenshot.

I suspect you are extending betting limits with a combination of bets. For example, bet on 1 number until you profit, then restart. Otherwise use progression that includes splits, streets etc. The result would be if you have unlimited bankroll, you could keep increasing progression and get a large bankroll. But eventually, the progression would fail and you lose the lot.

If you were using the system you've described (repeaters), then you are probably betting on recent past numbers. For example:

- Start betting on whatever numbers have spun. Track 37 spins per cycle. You are expecting there to be some repeats increase of 37 unique numbers.

- If you lose on one cycle, use progression for the next cycle.

OR

- Increase bets the more a number repeats in the 37 spin cycle

I get what you are trying to do, but it doesn't work because the accuracy is not changing. Betting repeaters isnt any more accurate than betting random numbers.

Anyway I do have an open mind to the possibility of you having something new. But I just haven't seen anything to suggest this is the case. The information you've given suggests the opposite because your approach is no different to random bet selection. The high bankroll is not impressive because anyone can restart the ranked game and try again. And nobody would know about the restart.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Tinsoldiers on Jan 29, 04:25 AM 2018
I get what you are trying to do, but it doesn't work because the accuracy is not changing. Betting repeaters isnt any more accurate than betting random numbers.
I don’t know what turbogenius is doing.  But I know for a fact that the above statement can be disproved easily through mathematics. Accuracy should not be viewed as predicting next spin. Accuracy here should be viewed as a statistical significance of a certain set of numbers appearing within a certain number of spins governed by laws of probability. If some one is claiming I can predict with 100% accuracy next 36 spins will contain number 23 then it is easy to see that the claim doesn’t have a mathematical basis. However if someone is claiming that I can predict with 80% accuracy that one of the four numbers will come up in next 36 spins, then it can be probed further. 

The odds of next spin will always remain 37:1, as the spins are independent. However repeaters can happen only on numbers that has happened before. Only a number that has repeated twice can repeat thrice in a stream of numbers, only a number that has repeated thrice can repeat four times etc.  Looking at repeaters creates a bias.  Not because they are hot numbers or an imbalance in the wheel etc, but because they are dependent on what has happened in the past. This is distinct from past spins not impacting future spins as they are independent, which they are. But without the past spins repeaters as a term itself doesn’t have a meaning, which implies there is a dependency. This may not change any odds as even the bias is driven by odds, but there is a potential to look into that bias and try exploit it.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Jan 29, 04:35 AM 2018
No the math proves you're incorrect. Carefully check your calculations.

You think you're narrowing down the odds. But all you're doing is gradually increasing the number of pockets you're betting on. Eventually you will win, but with odds the same as random bet selection. Simply test thoroughly.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Tinsoldiers on Jan 29, 05:38 AM 2018
You think you're narrowing down the odds.
No I don’t. Just so that we are talking the same thing, can I ask you what do you mean when you say “odds”. 

All I am saying is odds of a repeater are different from odds of a number. If there are three spins and the first spin is 31.  Odds of next spin being 31 is 37:1. Odds of next spin being 5 is 37:1. Odds of next spin being 31 as a repeater is 37:1. Odds of next spin being 5 as a repeater is 0. I don’t think anyone will disagree to this. This is a simple example which can be extrapolated to complex scenarios.

Now, I agree with you on the rest unless someone proves that is wrong, as I don’t know how to use this information effectively.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: sentinel3 on Jan 29, 09:57 AM 2018
I'm motivated to win. Losing is never an option. If it takes me a while to get there I'm ok with that. I just don't like to lose, no one does - play mode, real, you name it.
Why are you wasting your time on a toy. Get out there and cane the real game. And make a noise that comes back to Steves ears.

He thinks no one can make a living off this game unless they are using some computer to cheat.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Jan 29, 05:16 PM 2018
He thinks no one can make a living off this game unless they are using some computer to cheat.

Actually it's that I understand primary school math. You cant win long term if payouts are always lower than the odds (unless they have extreme luck, but that's not "making a living" is it?). Are you saying otherwise? That would be like saying 35 can be greater than 37, for no reason at all.

Anyone paying attention would know I explain many different ways its possible to beat roulette, without a computer.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Madi on Jan 29, 05:33 PM 2018
Can u show ur method that u used to play as a winner for years then down?
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: wiggy on Jan 29, 06:09 PM 2018
I take it you are in second place Turbo! I am in hot pursuit in 3rd!  >:D

Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Jan 29, 06:26 PM 2018
Madi, if you mean my method, it was just a basic dozens progression. And sometimes I would extend progression using inside bets. It was as good as random bets of different size but I didnt know that back then.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Madi on Jan 29, 06:35 PM 2018
Thats ok thanks. Just wanted to know what u used to play in ur early days
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Jan 29, 08:38 PM 2018
can I ask you what do you mean when you say “odds”. 

Odds are basically expected frequency. For example, there are 37 pockets so if you bet 1 number, the ODDS are you'll win 1 in 37 spins.

All I am saying is odds of a repeater are different from odds of a number

No, they are exactly the same. Many people say what you said, but it's completely wrong. The odds of 1,2,3 or 1,1,1 or 13,13,13 or 23,14,15 or 14,9,0 are all exactly the same.

If there are three spins and the first spin is 31.  Odds of next spin being 31 is 37:1. Odds of next spin being 5 is 37:1. Odds of next spin being 31 as a repeater is 37:1. Odds of next spin being 5 as a repeater is 0

Regarding the red part, WHY have the odds changed?

If you or anyone used the free software i published, you could plainly see the odds dont change after any sequence.

For example, check a billion spins for a sequence of 1,1,1,1 and see how often 1, 13, 14,17, etc spins next. You will find roulette couldnt care less about what you expect will spin more frequently, or happen less, or more.

What good is publishing free software, and spending lots of time to help players if they dont actually listen to reason and test? Players who don't test tend to throw stupid comments like "you're just trying to sell computers" or "you dont have an open mind".
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: cht on Jan 29, 09:50 PM 2018
Why bother study statistics if random is unpredictable ?

Causal statistics is only one branch of statistics.
It's not the be all and end all.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Jan 29, 10:04 PM 2018
You cant beat roulette with statistics alone.

Trying to do so shows you don't understand what statistics represent. Mostly it's just history and expectation.

An example of where statistics can be used is wheel bias. You could see which numbers won most. You could also see if those numbers were in the same sector. And you could determine the statistical relevance of the data, which may suggest with high probability that:

1. Specific numbers won more (with greater occurrences than normal variance)
2. These numbers were very close together on the wheel (unlikely to be coincidence)
3. The combination of the above, which makes it even more abnormally high chance that it's not a coincidence

One way to not use statistics is:

After 1000 spins, most are red, so we should bet black because we expect there will eventually be an even number of reds and blacks. There are many problems with this way of thinking. for one thing, where does your sample start and end? Maybe the previous 10,000 spins have a heavy affinity towards red. And why on earth would this affinity continue? Is it just plain variance? You know even with RNG, you still get much the same variance.

But often what people call "statistics" is just their own misunderstanding of statistics. Opinion and misunderstanding doesnt change reality.

So there are valid ways of using statistics to help win roulette. The valid ways use statistics to calculate the probability of events being "not random". They do NOT directly use statistics as a way to change the odds.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: cht on Jan 29, 10:05 PM 2018
Why bother study statistics if random is unpredictable ?

Causal statistics is only one branch of statistics.
It's not the be all and end all.

Causal statistics does not naturally inherit higher priority in accuracy. It's as accurate or inaccurate as any branch of statistics.

The biggest fallacy promoted on this forum
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Jan 29, 10:08 PM 2018
What is "casual statistics"? How is it different from "statistics"?

In the end it's all just math. Math is one expression of reality. But math is not what makes things happen. What makes things happen are the real physical variables and interactions of energy.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: cht on Jan 29, 10:33 PM 2018
But math is not what makes things happen.

The purpose of math is never to make things happen.

What makes things happen are the real physical variables and interactions of energy.

You have to prove that,
not by some youtube videos.

Probably over a million bets played over a million roulette wheels spun by a million dealers.

Btw it's only a million. :)

Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Madi on Jan 29, 10:39 PM 2018
Regarding the red part, WHY have the odds changed?

U know better why the odd have changed. His statement is very clear i believe.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Madi on Jan 29, 10:42 PM 2018
Cht

Dont bet on red and black at a time . If u do so we cant blame u.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: cht on Jan 29, 10:57 PM 2018
What makes things happen are the real physical variables and interactions of energy.
The required proof is to -

Put up an academic paper for peer review in the physics math fraternity. :thumbsup:

There's none at the moment.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Jan 29, 11:06 PM 2018
You have to prove that, not by some youtube videos.

Proof of cause and effect? Ok, here's proof..

Go to the nearest brick wall, then punch into it as hard as you can with your bare fist. It will hurt. That's cause and effect.

Cause and effect, beyond any reasonable doubt, is very easy to determine. For more complex matters, you need more extensive tests and observation. But you know here we arent talking about anything complicated. Actually it's really simple. The dynamics of why most players lose is simply they dont win enough to overcome the unfair payouts.

On the note about proof, where's your proof we arent living in a computer simulation? You cant prove this. We might be. And really we cant 100% prove anything. But we can at the very least make observations, and do testing, and come to a reasonable conclusion. And that's what "proof" is. It's as good as proof can get.

Probably over a million bets played over a million roulette wheels spun by a million dealers. Btw it's only a million.

No you dont need that many if you already have backup data. For example, with a roulette computer, you can have a beep when the ball is predicted to hit a specific diamond. You can plainly see and hear the beep is very accurate. It's certainly not random. And then you can see the ball bounce a predictable distance after it falls. You only need to see it a few times to know realistically where the accuracy comes from, and that its not coincidence.

Also you can see a ball hit a specific diamond again and again, for just 10-20 spins, and you'll have a very good idea that a diamond is dominant.

But where you need much more data is when testing systems that are nothing but numbers and numbers. For example, to test if the sequence of 1,2,3 will spin more frequently than 34,2,8 or 32,0,14 will need much more than 100 or so spins. You need hundreds of thousands or more spins.

I mean you are unlikely to get the sequence you want (1,2,3 or any other sequence you're checking) in just a few spins. And then you need to test the next number after 1,2,3 for many times. Otherwise your results could very easily be common variance.

Regarding the red part, WHY have the odds changed? U know better why the odd have changed. His statement is very clear i believe

What are you talking about? His statement is blatantly false. The sequence he said that has 0 chance is 31, 31, 5, 31, 5. But this will happen as often as any other sequence of 5 numbers. So 31,4,15,18,0 is just as rare. This stuff is FUNDAMENTAL. Don't argue about it. Just test with the free software I provided, or get a coder to create your own program. The more spins you test, the clearer the truth is. Or are you going to not test and just state what you believe is the truth?

Really I spend a lot of time here repeating the same thing. And people still dont get it. This is not about me being a math or roulette whiz. This is really basic stuff and people are still getting it wrong. JUST TEST FOR YOURSELF AND SEE.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Jan 29, 11:13 PM 2018
You also need to understand casino staff laugh their asses off at players on forums who still don't get it. The players are a joke to them.

Anyone with even basic understanding of the games and math take the knowledge for granted.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: cht on Jan 29, 11:17 PM 2018
Proof of cause and effect? Ok, here's proof..

Go to the nearest brick wall, then punch into it as hard as you can with your bare fist. It will hurt. That's cause and effect.

Cause and effect, beyond any reasonable doubt, is very easy to determine. For more complex matters, you need more extensive tests and observation. But you know here we arent talking about anything complicated. Actually it's really simple. The dynamics of why most players lose is simply they dont win enough to overcome the unfair payouts.
Yeah right. :thumbsup:
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: cht on Jan 29, 11:23 PM 2018
You also need to understand casino staff laugh their asses off at players on forums who still don't get it. The players are a joke to them.

Anyone with even basic understanding of the games and math take the knowledge for granted.
While they are laughing they disallow the use of mobile phones. :thumbsup:

Oops I forgot it's the cheat physics computers. >:D
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Jan 29, 11:31 PM 2018
Your response to logic is "yeah right". And you take a stab at what is without a doubt the most effective way of winning roulette.

You know we only use the computers where they are legal. We never break laws. It is never the legal definition of "cheating" where we play. They are never "allowed" though. Exactly the same as constant winning is never "allowed". Any constant winner needs to avoid detection, no matter how they win.

Anyway now you're just posting crap because you don't have anything better.  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: cht on Jan 29, 11:34 PM 2018
Your response to logic is "yeah right". And you take a stab at what is without a doubt the most effective way of winning roulette.

You know we only use the computers where they are legal. We never break laws. It is never the legal definition of "cheating" where we play. They are never "allowed" though. Exactly the same as constant winning is never "allowed". Any constant winner needs to avoid detection, no matter how they win.

Anyway now you're just posting crap because you don't have anything better.  :thumbsup:
No better crap than yours. :thumbsup:

PUT UP ACADEMIC PAPER FOR PEER REVIEW.

ELSE IT'S CRAP.  :xd:
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Madi on Jan 30, 12:02 AM 2018
. If there are three spins and the first spin is 31.  Odds of next spin being 31 is 37:1. Odds of next spin being 5 is 37:1. Odds of next spin being 31 as a repeater is 37:1. Odds of next spin being 5 as a repeater is 0.

U shouldnt disagree. As 5 has not appear ,
after 31 next spin 5 as repeater has 0 chance.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: cht on Jan 30, 12:02 AM 2018
And baiting is allowed for the owner. :thumbsup:
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Jan 30, 12:03 AM 2018
You want an academic paper for the primary school math, or basic roulette wheel physics?

I'm not sure I'm smart enough to cover the plus tables. As for roulette computers, start with Claude Shannon's work. There's a whole book explaining the basics. Also try the book "The Romeo Project". Then try the lab testing report, detailing the testing requested by the UK Gambling Commission, and done by the UK Weights and Measures Laboratory - although they applied only very basic approaches more as a proof of concept. Academic papers such as those are great for armchair scientists (people who never actually "do").

But if you're after more hands-on proof, anyone can visit me for a demo. You can even aim a camera at a wheel you own and let my computers send you predictions live via skype - use a wheel "they" see cant be beaten. You see everything down to beeps when the ball is predicted to fall or hit diamonds. It's clear enough proof even for a stoned chimpanzee.

(https://www.rouletteforum.cc/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pichost.org%2Fimages%2F2018%2F01%2F30%2Ftemp_718011.png&hash=e443d640ba35e49cb17c12aa35209d59) (http://www.pichost.org/image/GtFBo)

I think you're barking up the wrong tree here. I'm not trying to convince you of anything except how the house edge works, and why most systems fail. I don't care if you have a hard time believing what roulette computers do. I only brought them up as an example of cause, effect, and statistics, like bias analysis.

cht really I'm not arguing with you or anyone. I'm just saying do proper testing, and let that clear up things.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Jan 30, 12:06 AM 2018
U shouldnt disagree. As 5 has not appear ,
after 31 next spin 5 as repeater has 0 chance.

What are you talking about? After every spin, no exception, the odds of any numbers spinning next are always 1 in 37.

To be technical though, the odds of any number spinning next are actually 100%. That's because everything happens as a sequence of events. What happens just happens. But you dont know and cannot calculate the variables with anywhere near 100% accuracy. You can still usually calculate enough of the important variables to be accurate enough to overcome the house edge -- but that's another story.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Tinsoldiers on Jan 30, 01:06 AM 2018
Regarding the red part, WHY have the odds changed?
Clearly either you are not able to see past what you believe or you don’t want to. if you read the sentence again, you will get the answer you are asking.  That is end of discussion for me.  Thanks for patiently answering my questions.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Jan 30, 03:42 AM 2018
Tin, what you said was clear in my language. The problem is you were wrong. Or maybe you didn't convey your message clearly. The odds of the next number don't magically drop to zero. Its pretty hard to justify that logic.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: denzie on Jan 30, 04:05 AM 2018

Anyone paying attention would know I explain many different ways its possible to beat roulette, without a computer.

Oh really ? If i recall i did made a topic specially for that. But no answer came.

Lets try again...you sit down at the table with chips , drinks and NO electronic stuff.... whats your next move?  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Tinsoldiers on Jan 30, 04:44 AM 2018
Or maybe you didn't convey your message clearly. The odds of the next number don't magically drop to zero.
I don’t think I can be more clear than what I have written. There is no magic here. What I have tried explaining is odds of a number and odds of that Number to be called a repeater can be different.

You are stuck on odds of next Number and hence you are not able to see past that to read what I have written.  I suggest you read that one last time and if you think you still not get why I have written the odds of repeater to be 5 is zero, then let’s play a game of question and answers.

I go to a roulette table. I place my bet on 25. What is the odds of next Number being 25?  No added sentences, if you really want to give me a chance to explain and want you to be given a chance to understand just answer these in one word.  This is first of three questions. 
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Jan 30, 05:00 AM 2018
Tin, the odds of repeaters are no different. You dont know what youre talking about.

Denzie, and i already said roulettephysics.com has free systems that work. Start with the free vb system. Rather than me repeat the information, its easier you see the material already there.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Tinsoldiers on Jan 30, 05:04 AM 2018
Tin, the odds of repeaters are no different. You dont know what youre talking
I know what am talking. Please answer my question if we need to get the bottom of this. Else don’t blame someone that they are wrong. If you would like to continue am still waiting for the answer to my pointed question. What are the odds of next Number being 25.  Only two more questions, I promise.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Jan 30, 05:20 AM 2018
1 in 37
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Tinsoldiers on Jan 30, 05:31 AM 2018
1 in 37
Thank you. 


Now I have been very lucky and the ball lands in 25. I collect the chips the dealer gives and encash it. But wanted to watch what is happening and whether my luck will continue. I am a great fan of repeaters and also my lucky number is 1. I stay at the table watching the dealer spin again. Remember I have played only one spin so far which is 25. What are the odds that the next spin is my lucky number 1 and it is a repeater. Note the emphasis on “next spin” and “AND” before you give your answer.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Jan 30, 05:46 AM 2018
1 would not be a repeater because you only considered one other spin, which was 25. Nevertheless theres a 1 in 37 chance the next spin is 1.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Tinsoldiers on Jan 30, 08:48 AM 2018
Both statements are correct and that is what I was saying earlier. We didn’t have to go into the third question.

I am not negating what you are saying that the odds of numbers don’t change and for any number it is always 1 in 37.  What am trying to establish is as soon as you associate a character with a Number based on something that is happening in a set of spins, the odds do change. In this example it is a repeat. There are a number of characteristics one can play around with.  It opens an entirely new avenue to look at roulette numbers rather than just looking at them as individual slots in the wheel.

Now all said and done, I don’t know how to apply this in playing, but may be someone has like turbogenius.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: cht on Jan 30, 09:04 AM 2018
Oh really ? If i recall i did made a topic specially for that. But no answer came.

Lets try again...you sit down at the table with chips , drinks and NO electronic stuff.... whats your next move?  :thumbsup:
Do you expect to be any different this time?  :smile:
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: cht on Jan 30, 09:09 AM 2018
Both statements are correct and that is what I was saying earlier. We didn’t have to go into the third question.

I am not negating what you are saying that the odds of numbers don’t change and for any number it is always 1 in 37.  What am trying to establish is as soon as you associate a character with a Number based on something that is happening in a set of spins, the odds do change. In this example it is a repeat. There are a number of characteristics one can play around with.  It opens an entirely new avenue to look at roulette numbers rather than just looking at them as individual slots in the wheel.

Now all said and done, I don’t know how to apply this in playing, but may be someone has like turbogenius.
I have referred to it as the math model. This explains for the reason the casinos don't allow the use of mobile phones that aid in the stats calculations. Genius is when this process can be done with the grey cells top of our head.  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: denzie on Jan 30, 09:50 AM 2018
So your first move is.....
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Tinsoldiers on Jan 30, 10:53 AM 2018
So your first move is.....
Take a sip of that drink
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: TurboGenius on Jan 30, 12:46 PM 2018
I'm not interested in childish games. I asked because it would help determine if your wins were gradual, or sudden. Again, anyone can win $300k starting with $3k with the approach I explained.

eh it's a bit childish I agree, but anything I say or post is met with "fixed" or "rigged" or that I cheated or did something impossible. But fair enough, here's the chart - not a single reset from the start (dates are shown). I did start the first few days with small chips because I was experimenting a bit to see how fair the game was. Seems legit (but will end up being "fixed" at some point because I can't possibly be telling the truth ?)
I have a large reply to the posts made since my last one, but as I'm in the 4th day of the worst flu I've ever experienced, I'm out of commission temporarily. Whatever this is, I wish it on no one. Between the hospital and my bed at home, that's been my last 4 days wrapped up. But yes I have a huge reply coming. (of course).
I almost miss Bago - he would say "Turbo is faking the flu because he doesn't want to answer questions...lame excuse !". I miss that guy, lol.

(https://s17.postimg.org/dwbhsowsf/simulator_chart.jpg)

ps/ I did start a TurboTemp account name as well - because I wanted to try every trick in the book to make sure no one could cheat (I'm pretty good at finding that kind of stuff - and so far there's no way around the rules, so that's a plus in my book).
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: sentinel3 on Jan 30, 03:11 PM 2018
Actually it's that I understand primary school math. You cant win long term if payouts are always lower than the odds (unless they have extreme luck, but that's not "making a living" is it?). Are you saying otherwise? That would be like saying 35 can be greater than 37, for no reason at all.

Anyone paying attention would know I explain many different ways its possible to beat roulette, without a computer.
I am saying different. You cant be lucky for years. The system you use either has enough ACCURACY to hit a win in a given sequence or it doesnt.

Theres no luck there at all. A few weeks ago you said if somone has a mechanical system that really works. Why arent they taking the casinos for millions.

When I gave you the reality check about nobody being allowed to do so. Your comeback was thats nonsense. So I put to you. If its nonsense, please direct me to an online casino..That will even allow me to take them for 50k.

You gave no reply Steve. If you want to  be shown that a good mechanical system will take a casino to pieces. Im ready to show it.

The problem is these casino staff you claim will be laughing their asses off. Wont be laughing for long. Theyll be thinking up an excuse to stop me.

Because I can tell you this with absolute certainty. They will start to panic long before you will ever admit you are wrong.

They will know unless they stop me. I will take their profit margin seriously down. All I need is a casino who wont panic.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: keepontryin on Jan 30, 03:35 PM 2018
eh it's a bit childish I agree, but anything I say or post is met with "fixed" or "rigged" or that I cheated or did something impossible. But fair enough, here's the chart - not a single reset from the start (dates are shown). I did start the first few days with small chips because I was experimenting a bit to see how fair the game was. Seems legit (but will end up being "fixed" at some point because I can't possibly be telling the truth ?)
I have a large reply to the posts made since my last one, but as I'm in the 4th day of the worst flu I've ever experienced, I'm out of commission temporarily. Whatever this is, I wish it on no one. Between the hospital and my bed at home, that's been my last 4 days wrapped up. But yes I have a huge reply coming. (of course).
I almost miss Bago - he would say "Turbo is faking the flu because he doesn't want to answer questions...lame excuse !". I miss that guy, lol.

(https://s17.postimg.org/dwbhsowsf/simulator_chart.jpg)

ps/ I did start a TurboTemp account name as well - because I wanted to try every trick in the book to make sure no one could cheat (I'm pretty good at finding that kind of stuff - and so far there's no way around the rules, so that's a plus in my book).
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: keepontryin on Jan 30, 03:38 PM 2018

your the best turbo been listening to you since the old gamblerglen days......i believe you 100% been tryin to figure out what your doing and i must say it all sounds simple ......but ill keepontryin.......more clues may help.........
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Madi on Jan 30, 03:59 PM 2018
Why do u need online casino? Go to b$m . They allow u to pick up 50k everyday.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: denzie on Jan 30, 04:00 PM 2018
This was TG reporting live from the casino. Back to you Steve  :lol:




(Grabs popcorn)
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Jan 30, 05:19 PM 2018
I am saying different. You cant be lucky for years

Of course you can. It more depends on factors such as the amount of spins you play. If you run simulations with testing software, even with a losing system, you can see some tests show a profit after even 20,000+ spins. I played for a year with a losing system, and was profiting - until the very end. There are also many players who have been playing for many years, and have profited so far.

A good example of what happens in real casinos is at http://www.rouletteplayers.org/leaderboard/
It shows data like bankroll, and amount of spins played, but most importantly win rate. This is the ratio between wins and losses. About 0.973 is expected because of the house edge. If you tally up all the winnings and all the losses of the players, you get 975659848/1002385765 = 0.973 as expected.

This means on average, the players combined have lost, and the casino has profited.

But still we have people with really bad luck (very low win rate). These people are convinced their system doesn't work. And we have players with very good luck (very high win rate). These people think their system is the HG. Are they right? No. All that's happening is typical variance. Some players win, some players lose.

When the spins and game are realistic, the results are usually as expected:

The columns are  BANKROLL       PLAYED SPINS    AMOUNT BET     AMOUNT LOST     WIN RATE

(https://www.rouletteforum.cc/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pichost.org%2Fimages%2F2018%2F01%2F30%2Ftemp_749721.png&hash=37afdd43e31cc7d69916d0fbfcbddfa5) (http://www.pichost.org/image/GtAjK)

And

(https://www.rouletteforum.cc/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pichost.org%2Fimages%2F2018%2F01%2F30%2Ftemp_669362.png&hash=43b8a9db6509102a5e39076acdab83cd) (http://www.pichost.org/image/GtVFB)

I recall now you told me you had one account for messing around, and one you were trying to do well on. So what happened??

So your first move is.....

Observe the wheel design, the ball used, the dominant diamonds, and all the other typical signs that the wheel is likely to give more predictable spins than others. Professional play all starts with wheel selection. Denzie, I'm not going to give a full course right here. Like I already explained, there are free methods I already offer on my website.

When I gave you the reality check about nobody being allowed to do so. Your comeback was thats nonsense. So I put to you. If its nonsense, please direct me to an online casino.That will even allow me to take them for 50k.

No, it is simply how things work. Again it's not uncommon for players to win over $50k in one session. It more depends on the table limits. The most any of my players have won at an online casino (in one session) is something like 70k euros, and they were paid. But I have other online players that won just $500 or so and had accounts restricted, presumably because the player's activity before betting, and style of play, raised red flags.

Online casinos operate a bit differently because they can usually get away with more than a real casino would (depending on jurisdiction). Most online casinos can refuse payout for any reason they want - even if they just make up a reason. They know you wont take them to court and that even if you did, there's not much chance you'll win.

It isnt so easy for real casinos to make up excuses to refuse payout. There is video evidence that can support you. Generally in real casinos, if you win big, there will be a delay for payout as the surveillance staff check for anything suspicious in recordings. An organized team can easily avoid the attention if they know what to do. But I'm not going to discuss how we avoid detection here except to say one simply technique is splitting chips between players/people to avoid reporting thresholds.

Now for the important part: if there was a system that did not appear to be anything like advantage play, and the player won big, the casino would have no reason to suspect the big winnings were due to anything but luck. Compare roulette computers where you can only win with late bets, so you must disguise your bets with intentionally losing bets - which limits winnings. So your winnings are more limited. Now compare to something like a typical system with progression - and with such a system, it doesn't look suspicious at all. So the player can win much more without drawing any attention.

Putting it into context, an organized roulette computer team can win $5,000 - $10,000 in a typical small stakes casino usually without suspicion (much more is possible in higher stakes environments, without drawing too much attention). But if a player won twice this amount with typical system betting approaches, the casino would not get suspicious even if they won much more. And it would be much easier to win into the millions with the HG because you could play anywhere, online or real casinos, new or old wheels, bouncy balls or predictable balls -- there would be no significant limitations. So my point is if Turbo really had the HG, he could very easily be earning tens of millions in a short time. It would be very easy to avoid detection provided he kept each session below the reporting threshold, which is not hard to do. But instead what we get is turbo wasting weeks with fun money, instead of real money. If he could do it with real money on the same scale as fun money, he would be doing it. It's the same for everyone else who has the "HG".

I have referred to it as the math model. This explains for the reason the casinos don't allow the use of mobile phones that aid in the stats calculations. Genius is when this process can be done with the grey cells top of our head. 

The math is simple: payouts are lower than the odds. You cant use that to win. You cant change the payouts. You need to change the odds.

No casino "allows" electronics, because they easily beat casinos. That's my preferred method. I like to make it easy. And although it's "not allowed", it is still legal in about half of casinos. That's my choice, it doesn't affect anyone except the poor billionaire casino owners. I already explained there are ways to win without computers. I'll respond to turbo in next post.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Jan 30, 06:07 PM 2018
Turbo, thanks for posting the chart.


1. My first question is why couldn't you achieve the same results on www.rouletteplayers.org ? I suppose the answer will be something like "I was just messing around there", or "I hadnt perfected my HG yet".


2. Considering everywhere you play, your spins are logged anyway (at least for debugging), why not prove yourself on the community ranked game? Why deliberately avoid it? And no, you never made clear why you don't play there anymore. But I suspect it's because the spins were realistic, and the results didn't suit you. Also the only logs I keep are for debugging to prevent cheating. They do not easily enable reverse engineering a system without further mods, which is not something I am doing. Whereas roulette-simulator directly replicates your bets in a manner which can easily show what you're doing. But you play there anyway. So I see no valid reason why you would avoid rouletteplayer.org if ranking high was your aim, and you really had the HG.


3. The bankroll trend chart you posted is as it is likely because:


I'd say it's a combination of all. Rouletteplayers.org is a more realistic game, using real spins database. Which is probably why you achieved very different results to Parx and roulette-simulator.

(https://www.rouletteforum.cc/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pichost.org%2Fimages%2F2018%2F01%2F30%2Ftemp_290163.png&hash=92ce9287a13863adcde8b72e6bc9eef5) (http://www.pichost.org/image/GtCMl)


4. On roulette-simulator, just like Parx, there are lots of super-successful players. Real casinos don't make so much money for players. Usually it's the players that lose money.

Let's compare players with comparable bankrolls:

(https://www.rouletteforum.cc/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pichost.org%2Fimages%2F2018%2F01%2F30%2Ftemp_956157.png&hash=ec3adabc30298ecb494420ac078cfb1a) (http://www.pichost.org/image/GtXR9)

Excluding you and the other hidden player with the HG, we see lots of people did well. I excluded the players who won with blatant luck in very few sessions.

But on rouletteplayers.org, these are the players with highest bankrolls:

(https://www.rouletteforum.cc/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pichost.org%2Fimages%2F2018%2F01%2F30%2Ftemp_911234.png&hash=d584826ce3d28c8abe4c5fcbf460890d) (http://www.pichost.org/image/Gtd5D)

And we can see their real win rates. Beneficia has done best because they have a positive win rate over a larger amount of spins. But 6000 actually isnt a lot. For one thing, test a random system on RX for 6,000 spins, and you'll find perhaps 1 in 15 times you'll have profited. Check the rouletteplayers.org leaderboard and you'll see quite a few players have a positive win rate with 5,000+ spins. Does it mean they all have the HG, or that it's plain short-term variance (some players win, some players lose. the more they play, the more likely they are to lose)

I'm not sure if you really believe you have the HG. Maybe you are selectively playing games that give you good results, without fully understanding why a game may not be realistic. But I think it's safe to say if you really had the HG, you would be using it to make large sums of real money, instead of wasting weeks with play money. I accept that money doesn't motivate everyone the same way. I'm not desperate for money either. But I had the HG, I;d sure as hell be making a killing from it instead of wasting weeks with play money like you are.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Taotie on Jan 30, 06:52 PM 2018
Neither game is a fair indicator.

MPR has many issues that make it difficult for players to do well. There are a few bets unavailable to players, and the table spreads are unrealistically compressed for many of the layout positions. There is no double up button to help players get their bets down in time. The game itself is very glitchy with high impact to players using progressions and or waiting for triggers.

For example someone is playing for 2 hours waiting for a certain trigger. The trigger appears and the person bets. The game freezes and the person must refresh the game to continue. The game refreshes and in doing so removes the placed bet. The position that the player was betting shows and the player misses out on the profit. He gets the shits and leaves. He comes back another day and  tries to play again. His trigger appears quickly and he bets. He loses. He is now a loser, but he should be a winner because he got ripped off his first win. His game is tainted.

Another example: A player is deep in progression many thousands of units. He starts to place his next bet on a handful of layout positions. He places 4 of his 5 bets at the table limit. The game spits out the next result short of the 30 seconds just before the player gets to place his final bet. The 5th bet that was not placed wins. The player not only misses out on the win to correct the drawdown and return to profit, but he also loses the shorted bet increasing the drawdown. He gets the shits and leaves. He now must decide to come back and continue with the progression or purge the bet and absorb the loss with a reduced bankroll.

This is only two examples of how the glitchy nature of MPR hurts players. IMO, after players get hurt too many times, they no longer see the point of playing a fair game and just start messing around.


The Roulette Simulator is the opposite of MPR when it comes to table spreads. To sum it up, the spread for an EC is $1 to $20000...ridiculous.
The game can be played at your own pace, taking as long as you like between spins.
I can prove the game is easily compromised, which means the leaderboard is more than likely littered with cheats. 




Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: nottophammer on Jan 30, 07:03 PM 2018
For example someone is playing for 2 hours waiting for a certain trigger. The trigger appears and the person bets. The game freezes and the person must refresh the game to continue. The game refreshes and in doing so removes the placed bet. The position that the player was betting shows and the player misses out on the profit. He gets the shits and leaves. He comes back another day and  tries to play again. His trigger appears quickly and he bets. He loses. He is now a loser, but he should be a winner because he got ripped off his first win.

Another example: A player is deep in progression many thousands of units. He starts to place his next bet on a handful of layout positions. He places 4 of his 5 bets at the table limit. The game spits out the next result short of the 30 seconds just before the player gets to place his final bet. The 5th bet that was not placed wins. The player not only misses out on the win to correct the drawdown and return to profit, but he also loses the shorted bet increasing the drawdown. He gets the shits and leaves. He now must decide to come back and continue with the progression or purge the bet and absorb the loss with a reduced bankroll.
Absolutely right Taotie, is it the ready button? that everyone wants one to press, if i dont touch it its fine apart from the freezing of game , which like you say conveniently happens on a win, or worst still it goes off early and the 1 # that is about to be covered, does not get anything on it as the # comes early, making a loss
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Jan 30, 07:06 PM 2018
We can look at the glitches you described in time. For now we're working on fixing the double bet feature. The only glitch I've personally experienced is lag, but I found found it critical enough to affect my play. Server synchronization is essential to ensure all players receive the same spins to play. But there may be an issue we missed that causes more lag than there should be. Again we'll look at that in time.

We did a poll to see what betting time limits players wanted, and people got what they wanted.

You could miss an opportunity to bet, and would have won. OR you could miss an opportunity to bet, and would have lost. So the lag would not affect the fairness of the game.

Anyway it would help if anyone experiencing the lag can get a screen recording of this, and explain the internet connection they are using. The programmer is working on it all so there may be temporary disruption.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: TurboGenius on Jan 30, 07:11 PM 2018
1. My first question is why couldn't you achieve the same results on www.rouletteplayers.org ? I suppose the answer will be something like "I was just messing around there", or "I hadnt perfected my HG yet".

I could easily achieve the same results there.

2. Considering everywhere you play, your spins are logged anyway (at least for debugging), why not prove yourself on the community ranked game? Why deliberately avoid it? And no, you never made clear why you don't play there anymore. But I suspect it's because the spins were realistic, and the results didn't suit you. Also the only logs I keep are for debugging to prevent cheating. They do not easily enable reverse engineering a system without further mods, which is not something I am doing. Whereas roulette-simulator directly replicates your bets in a manner which can easily show what you're doing. But you play there anyway.

That's nonsense - how many times were people posting "I keep seeing the same numbers repeating in a cycle" and then a reply about how the list was repeating and various other problems in how the numbers were being picked and displayed. If anything it wasn't realistic at all. I'm sure it's fixed now - but... I won't play when my bets can be monitored by someone else. I know this was necessary because of the "cheater(s)" who I never felt were properly exposed for what they were doing on the site. Something I took the time to expose and detail to you. So if I played I used basic systems with little effort to move up the rank. I did have fun in the chat window posting 3 or 4 numbers to the other players and those numbers would always win very shortly after, I did this multiple times. I'm not going to expose what I'm doing in that kind of detail though when it can be monitored. No offense - but what is that info worth ? We all know the answer to that. The simulator site does indeed record and playback every spin but only for player's who have their profile set to public. No one can see my bets other than the people running the site, I'm ok with that for now. I can always just reset my play and erase it all.
Parx records every play as well, I have access to it - that's how I can tell you how many spins I've played, etc. But anyway.

Excluding you and the other hidden player with the HG, we see lots of people did well. I excluded the players who won with blatant luck in very few sessions.

Your "lots of people that did well" is nothing - did you scroll ? Did you look at #518th position and up from there ? lol. Those players that did well that seem impressive are irrelevant in the overall picture of the players who have lost and lost Bigly.
And this doesn't even factor in the tons of people who use the reset to start fresh. At least these people didn't (or don't know how to). I never reset once, just as I said.

https://postimg.org/image/y1wm8ngx7/
(https://postimg.org/image/y1wm8ngx7/)

Add these up and compare to yours you posted as the "lots of winners"
It's very hard to have that limited 3k starting balance for a session when you have a 100k+ bankroll, but all you can use it 3k, if you can explain how I won and made a chart like that using the limited table limits and limited bankroll balance per session, I'm all ears.
Just try not to use "fixed", "rigged" or "non-realistic". It's a fair game - look at the stats page as they have results from every "spin" that's happened there - 1.7 million so far. Is it luck ? Not enough spins (which will extend until I lose, which I already said that I can't). It won't matter.

https://roulette-simulator.info/en/roulette-analysis

And the few people who keep saying "why not play it in the casino for real money and stop wasting your time with games".
A) As I keep saying, I DO play in the casino - I don't dedicate that much time to the games online - 15 minutes per day maybe, 1/2 hour ?, it's just a tool to show the effects of using what works. As I've also said, my results live play for $ are exactly in line with the game stats - on a smaller scale. As I tell Sir Anyone at the other forum, I'll take milk forever instead of cheeseburgers once. I prefer to win small amounts over time and be completely off the radar. I don't even use any casino's cards and I'm certainly nowhere on file, by name or otherwise.
Other people want to "make a killing", fine with me. That's not how I play and not my motivation.

The game is easily compromised, which means the leaderboard is more than likely littered with cheats. 

I've been going through that site looking for any flaws that people could use to cheat and found very few issues, none that the common player could use to "cheat". I'm curious what you found that I haven't.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Taotie on Jan 30, 07:25 PM 2018
...none that the common player could use to "cheat". I'm curious what you found that I haven't.

Are you saying an uncommon player could cheat?

As for what I found, I can't disclose that publicly as I haven't finished cheating yet! lol
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: TurboGenius on Jan 30, 07:26 PM 2018
Are you saying an uncommon player could cheat?
As for what I found, I can't disclose that publicly as I haven't finished cheating yet! lol

Best answer ever lol
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Jan 30, 07:47 PM 2018
The simulator site does indeed record and playback every spin but only for player's who have their profile set to public. No one can see my bets other than the people running the site, I'm ok with that for now.

That's no different to MPR. Although MPR has even less capacity to track a player's system.

Also distribution of numbers is one of many tests done when determining the predictability of RNG. Even with Excel RNG (one of the worst modern RNG) you will still get equal distribution. It doesnt tell you how random spins are.

Cheating the roulette-simulator would be very easy if the winnings are calculated player-side, which it appears to be. A brief look at its source and it appears to use local rng from the player's pc, specifically the javascript Math.random() function. It would be easy to manipulate the data sent to the server, which is how MPR was cheated before (the programmer did not code as requested t make winning number determined by the server, although its now fixed). I'm not saying this is what you're doing Turbo, although it's possible. I think the other possibilities I highlighted are more the case. Maybe something Taotie found is even easier.

In any event, roulette-simulator is certainly not a good place to demonstrate a system's effectiveness. Neither is Parx. MPR is a much better option for reasons explained, even with occasional lag. But you wont play there anymore, for reasons that I dont believe, considering roulette-simulator directly records your strategy. So you wont play at MPR anymore. And I think it's clear the time you did play there showed more realistic results of your system.

(https://www.rouletteforum.cc/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pichost.org%2Fimages%2F2018%2F01%2F30%2Ftemp_290163.png&hash=92ce9287a13863adcde8b72e6bc9eef5)
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: cht on Jan 30, 08:28 PM 2018
I could easily achieve the same results there.

That's nonsense - how many times were people posting "I keep seeing the same numbers repeating in a cycle" and then a reply about how the list was repeating and various other problems in how the numbers were being picked and displayed. If anything it wasn't realistic at all. I'm sure it's fixed now - but... I won't play when my bets can be monitored by someone else. I know this was necessary because of the "cheater(s)" who I never felt were properly exposed for what they were doing on the site. Something I took the time to expose and detail to you. So if I played I used basic systems with little effort to move up the rank. I did have fun in the chat window posting 3 or 4 numbers to the other players and those numbers would always win very shortly after, I did this multiple times. I'm not going to expose what I'm doing in that kind of detail though when it can be monitored. No offense - but what is that info worth ? We all know the answer to that. The simulator site does indeed record and playback every spin but only for player's who have their profile set to public. No one can see my bets other than the people running the site, I'm ok with that for now. I can always just reset my play and erase it all.
Parx records every play as well, I have access to it - that's how I can tell you how many spins I've played, etc. But anyway.

Your "lots of people that did well" is nothing - did you scroll ? Did you look at #518th position and up from there ? lol. Those players that did well that seem impressive are irrelevant in the overall picture of the players who have lost and lost Bigly.
And this doesn't even factor in the tons of people who use the reset to start fresh. At least these people didn't (or don't know how to). I never reset once, just as I said.

https://postimg.org/image/y1wm8ngx7/
(https://postimg.org/image/y1wm8ngx7/)

Add these up and compare to yours you posted as the "lots of winners"
It's very hard to have that limited 3k starting balance for a session when you have a 100k+ bankroll, but all you can use it 3k, if you can explain how I won and made a chart like that using the limited table limits and limited bankroll balance per session, I'm all ears.
Just try not to use "fixed", "rigged" or "non-realistic". It's a fair game - look at the stats page as they have results from every "spin" that's happened there - 1.7 million so far. Is it luck ? Not enough spins (which will extend until I lose, which I already said that I can't). It won't matter.

https://roulette-simulator.info/en/roulette-analysis

And the few people who keep saying "why not play it in the casino for real money and stop wasting your time with games".
A) As I keep saying, I DO play in the casino - I don't dedicate that much time to the games online - 15 minutes per day maybe, 1/2 hour ?, it's just a tool to show the effects of using what works. As I've also said, my results live play for $ are exactly in line with the game stats - on a smaller scale. As I tell Sir Anyone at the other forum, I'll take milk forever instead of cheeseburgers once. I prefer to win small amounts over time and be completely off the radar. I don't even use any casino's cards and I'm certainly nowhere on file, by name or otherwise.
Other people want to "make a killing", fine with me. That's not how I play and not my motivation.

I've been going through that site looking for any flaws that people could use to cheat and found very few issues, none that the common player could use to "cheat". I'm curious what you found that I haven't.
Hi TurboGenius, for whatever reason NEVER EVER BE LURED TO PLAY ON THE MPR.

It's there for a reason and we all know what that reason is. :thumbsup:
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Jan 30, 08:32 PM 2018
That's right cht, its a fair game and he'll get the same results as before. Best he avoids it, and sticks to the other game which allows the server owner to conveniently replay the session. Its better for privacy  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: cht on Jan 30, 08:38 PM 2018
That's right cht, its a fair game and he'll get the same results as before. Best he avoids it, and sticks to the other game which allows the server owner to conveniently replay the session. Its better for privacy  :thumbsup:
That's right, your MPR is the gold standard so that we can get YOUR approval. Try the dolts. :thumbsup:
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: TurboGenius on Jan 30, 08:50 PM 2018
In any event, roulette-simulator is certainly not a good place to demonstrate a system's effectiveness. Neither is Parx. MPR is a much better option for reasons explained

Basically, anywhere that I play - where I win - is not a good demonstration at all.
Anywhere that I play - should I somehow lose - is a good demonstration.
If I win for 30,000 spins it's rigged.
If I lose for 400 spins, it's a fair game.
None of this makes sense. Your proof of something working or not is only validated if the results match your opinion.
I wasn't playing my "system" on this site's game page - I played a few ways, none of which were long term winners and as I said before, I wouldn't play where my bets would be available to others to see. At Parx they are recorded, and the Simulator they are as well - my profile is set to private though, I'm not concerned.
On a gambling forum ? If I were going to play there I might as well just post the specifics and be done with it.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: cht on Jan 30, 08:54 PM 2018
Basically, anywhere that I play - where I win - is not a good demonstration at all.
Anywhere that I play - should I somehow lose - is a good demonstration.
If I win for 30,000 spins it's rigged.
If I lose for 400 spins, it's a fair game.
None of this makes sense. Your proof of something working or not is only validated if the results match your opinion.
I wasn't playing my "system" on this site's game page - I played a few ways, none of which were long term winners and as I said before, I wouldn't play where my bets would be available to others to see. At Parx they are recorded, and the Simulator they are as well - my profile is set to private though, I'm not concerned.
On a gambling forum ? If I were going to play there I might as well just post the specifics and be done with it.
Pretty obvious that's the sole purpose of this thread and MPR.

Move on people.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Jan 30, 09:46 PM 2018
That's right, your MPR is the gold standard so that we can get YOUR approval

The gold standard is the spins, not the game. It wouldnt matter what the interface looked like. Keep in mind MPR uses a real spins database. And like I said, when Turbo played against real spins:

(https://www.rouletteforum.cc/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pichost.org%2Fimages%2F2018%2F01%2F30%2Ftemp_290163.png&hash=92ce9287a13863adcde8b72e6bc9eef5)

Basically, anywhere that I play - where I win - is not a good demonstration at all.

That's called a cop-out. Its easy for you to fall back on that, without considering the source of spins or game rules. I guess you still dont understand the math of Parx and how it gives players an edge.

Beyond spins, another consideration is things like the players getting payouts just for logging in (Parx), then huge cash bonuses that anyone can win once, then be almost untouchable on the leaderboard provided they played often.

If I win for 30,000 spins it's rigged.

Where have you won with 30,000 spins, using real betting limits, and genuinely random/realistic spin results?

If I lose for 400 spins, it's a fair game.

No, it's too short term to tell us anything with system play. Again you're falling back on easy but inaccurate comments.

None of this makes sense. Your proof of something working or not is only validated if the results match your opinion.

Nothing to do with opinion. It is a fact that real casinos don't give out free money every time you log in, or award huge play money bonuses for being lucky for the day - giving any such player who continues to play a huge advantage, provided they continue to play. The math is not my opinion.

I wasn't playing my "system" on this site's game page - I played a few ways, none of which were long term winners and as I said before, I wouldn't play where my bets would be available to others to see.

So you telling me you had one serious account and one test account means you never played with intent to become #1 on MPR?

And do you always intentionally use a losing system when trying to rank high?

And there is no way anyone but me on MPR could see the logs of bets. It is just lines of data that would be a nightmare to decode to figure out a system. That's not what it was designed to do. It was designed to check for cheating and bugs. Again your reasoning is as if Parx and roulette-simulator dont log everything, when you know they do. More so roulette-simulator. So your argument doesnt hold water.

On a gambling forum ? If I were going to play there I might as well just post the specifics and be done with it.

But MPR is a completely independent site.  It's not a forum. Again your argument doesn't stack up. Looks more like excuses to avoid a fair game.

Looks like we're at stalemate again.

On the spins I know are real and fair, you lost.

You say that was because you werent using your best system there... although you told me personally you had multiple accounts - one for testing and one for serious play. You played for a long time, but eventually stopped when your ranking fell back to around average.

Your system did well on mathematically rigged game that gives players an edge (Parx). No surprise there.

Your system did well on roulette-simulator using player-side javascript pseudo RNG - something you'll never find a real casino doing because the RNG is notoriously bad, and it's far too easy to cheat. But hey, I'm the bad guy for pointing that out, right? I just want to sell computers.

Your theories are contradictory and backwards - and typical gambler's fallacy. You say one thing then say something completely different, indicating you don't even understand the contradiction.

You are not motivated by money, so you prefer to spend weeks winning with play money, instead of winning millions in real money.

Right. I don't buy it. It has nothing to do with my opinion. The information doesnt add up.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Jan 30, 10:13 PM 2018
This is why real casinos dont use typical psuedo RNG. Here's the RNG from Microsoft Windows. It's a bitmap image from random.org showing how "not random" it actually is:

(https://www.rouletteforum.cc/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pichost.org%2Fimages%2F2018%2F01%2F31%2Ftemp_208482.png&hash=230900de31737f2e2cfece381df25896) (http://www.pichost.org/image/GtBCi)

You can plainly see the lines. A good psuedo RNG would be almost as good as true RNG. But random functions like those used in Excel, Java, PHP, Linux, Windows etc are very poor RNG.

Is it just my "opinion"?
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: TurboGenius on Jan 30, 10:57 PM 2018
That's called a cop-out. Its easy for you to fall back on that, without considering the source of spins or game rules.

For the record - the anti-system people use this often, isn't there even a book somewhere with a ton of spins recorded from "live wheels", etc. etc.
Yet you'll correctly say that these spins, in that order, will never happen again.
Take 200 spins from your live wheel on your site - those 200 spins will never appear again in that order - so any method that does beat them isn't really validated because those are "past spins" and "won't appear that way again",, etc. That's actually true - so why does something that beats those "never happening again past spins" validated ?
Also, it's a terrible approach to work a system to win when the spins are from live wheels but combined together in 'who knows what' fashion.
Let's say you have wheel 1 and there is a run of 30 reds in a row which is rare of course - but now you take another wheel 2 that had a run of 25 reds in a row and you splice them together for your "simulator" - as if 55 reds in a row could ever possibly happen.
When you combine "random" with another source of "random", sadly you won't get random anymore, you've influenced the listing and it's not random.
This is just one example of why combining tables and live spins and splicing them together will never give accurate results for testing - but it's done anyway and people fail.
RNG however can produce random constantly - there's no "the dealer changed here" or "This is from tables 1 through 10 combined however I felt like combining them.
Even a crap RNG that is seeded randomly will give very good results for testing a method.
You won't get the same listing twice, etc etc.
But anyway - I still have the big reply to type up when I'm not suffering as much (lol).
Maybe it will shed some light on things for you.
I know it seems like "going nowhere" or "going in circles" but I think the readers benefit from the information both sides put out so they can make their own choices to
"give up, it's hopeless" or "keep trying because there are ways that work"
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: TurboGenius on Jan 30, 11:06 PM 2018
Where have you won with 30,000 spins, using real betting limits, and genuinely random/realistic spin results?

That's a very good question but it's a trap.
You would need to define your own opinion of what the betting limits should be, what the source of the "random"?/"realistic"? should be - because every place I play I dominate and win. None of those places are going to qualify though I know for your definitions.
One place will be unrealistic, another place might be 'fixed', etc etc.
Hell, my own live casino play results could even be argued as validation because "not enough spins" or "could have been a bias wheel".
It's nice to play the game when you won't let your opponent have a single way to prove something because you can always put up another wall and say it's a stalemate.
(I could post the math - and then it's over.. and you would instantly agree with me). But this could be more interesting without having to go that specific in the open.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Jan 30, 11:23 PM 2018
the anti-system people use this often

I'm not anti-system. I'm anti-anti-logic. You cant ever make 35 greater than 37.

Yet you'll correctly say that these spins, in that order, will never happen again.

Given enough spins, it would. It just a matter of time. What happens on large scales also happens on small scales. You can test the theories more easily with a wheel that had just 5 numbers.

Take 200 spins from your live wheel on your site - those 200 spins will never appear again in that order - so any method that does beat them isn't really validated because those are "past spins" and "won't appear that way again",, etc. That's actually true - so why does something that beats those "never happening again past spins" validated ?

You cant bet against a pattern you think wont ever happen because you still aren't making 35 greater than 37.

Also, it's a terrible approach to work a system to win when the spins are from live wheels but combined together in 'who knows what' fashion.

You said your system works thanks to spins being random. So you are saying you cant change the odds and thats why your system wins. It's backwards. Now you're saying if there were spins that may not be random, it would be worse.

as if 55 reds in a row could ever possibly happen

Given enough spins, of course it would happen. You also keep saying random has limits. Actually no, it does not have limits. Even bago had to show you simulations where your limits were exceeded, and he's not too bright. Simple the greater the amount of spins, the greater the amount of possibilities. It just keeps going and going forever. But you recite obscure theoretical math that has no sense in the real world, like saying 1 / 0 = a really big number.

When you combine "random" with another source of "random", sadly you won't get random anymore, you've influenced the listing and it's not random.

Do you know what random means? It means random. It means ZERO known predictability. If you have zero in the equation, the result will be zero. 0 x 0 = 0 x 3 = 0, and so on. You are saying 0 x 0 = something. It's wrong. You say its not random. If it were not random anymore, it would be predictable, and then you could change the odds. But you have it backwards saying random is good. But random and random is bad. Seriously.

This is just one example of why combining tables and live spins and splicing them together will never give accurate results for testing - but it's done anyway and people fail.

Ok so now you are blaming MPR's mixed bag of spins on your realistic results, which are a loss? Because random and random means predictable, which is why you cant beat those spins. Again, seriously.

RNG however can produce random constantly - there's no "the dealer changed here" or "This is from tables 1 through 10 combined however I felt like combining them.

Ok so again you're saying random is good. Random means changing the odds are impossible, which is 35 always being less than 37, which means you lose.

Even a crap RNG that is seeded randomly will give very good results for testing a method.

Sure, that's because crap RNG is quite predictable. Not random. That's why we call it "crap RNG".

That's a very good question but it's a trap.

How's it a trap? It's a simple question asking where you have done what you claim to do, using a realistically fair game? You said it, not me. So I asked. Its not a trap.

because every place I play I dominate and win

Unless of course we mix random with random, because then it would be predictable and not random, and unbeatable - which explains your loss on MPR, right?

(I could post the math - and then it's over.. and you would instantly agree with me)

I doubt it. I dont think I could ever agree with logic like random is random, unless you mix random with random to make it not random, in which case it's unpredictable and cant be beaten.

Again this is not my opinion. This is what you are saying. What I believe is based on what is in front of me. And what's in front of me is a bunch of contradictory, and backwards nonsense, mixed in with short term testing on rigged games.

Turbo, if I truly believed you have what you claim, I would say that. But there are holes all over it and any reasonable mind would come to the same conclusions.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Jan 30, 11:30 PM 2018
Again its not that I dont have an open mind, because I do very much so. If you simply said you used intuition to guess numbers, I would find it more credible because then you at least have a chance of increasing your odds to be better than 1 in 35. What you are saying you're doing is wrong on many levels. Really what you are saying is not much different from saying 1 + 1 = 82, and you use the math to make it = 82.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: sentinel3 on Jan 30, 11:40 PM 2018
Of course you can. It more depends on factors such as the amount of spins you play. If you run simulations with testing software, even with a losing system, you can see some tests show a profit after even 20,000+ spins. I played for a year with a losing system, and was profiting - until the very end. There are also many players who have been playing for many years, and have profited so far.

A good example of what happens in real casinos is at http://www.rouletteplayers.org/leaderboard/
It shows data like bankroll, and amount of spins played, but most importantly win rate. This is the ratio between wins and losses. About 0.973 is expected because of the house edge. If you tally up all the winnings and all the losses of the players, you get 975659848/1002385765 = 0.973 as expected.

This means on average, the players combined have lost, and the casino has profited.

But still we have people with really bad luck (very low win rate). These people are convinced their system doesn't work. And we have players with very good luck (very high win rate). These people think their system is the HG. Are they right? No. All that's happening is typical variance. Some players win, some players lose.

When the spins and game are realistic, the results are usually as expected:

The columns are  BANKROLL       PLAYED SPINS    AMOUNT BET     AMOUNT LOST     WIN RATE

(https://www.rouletteforum.cc/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pichost.org%2Fimages%2F2018%2F01%2F30%2Ftemp_749721.png&hash=37afdd43e31cc7d69916d0fbfcbddfa5) (http://www.pichost.org/image/GtAjK)

And

(https://www.rouletteforum.cc/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pichost.org%2Fimages%2F2018%2F01%2F30%2Ftemp_669362.png&hash=43b8a9db6509102a5e39076acdab83cd) (http://www.pichost.org/image/GtVFB)

I recall now you told me you had one account for messing around, and one you were trying to do well on. So what happened??

Observe the wheel design, the ball used, the dominant diamonds, and all the other typical signs that the wheel is likely to give more predictable spins than others. Professional play all starts with wheel selection. Denzie, I'm not going to give a full course right here. Like I already explained, there are free methods I already offer on my website.

No, it is simply how things work. Again it's not uncommon for players to win over $50k in one session. It more depends on the table limits. The most any of my players have won at an online casino (in one session) is something like 70k euros, and they were paid. But I have other online players that won just $500 or so and had accounts restricted, presumably because the player's activity before betting, and style of play, raised red flags.

Online casinos operate a bit differently because they can usually get away with more than a real casino would (depending on jurisdiction). Most online casinos can refuse payout for any reason they want - even if they just make up a reason. They know you wont take them to court and that even if you did, there's not much chance you'll win.

It isnt so easy for real casinos to make up excuses to refuse payout. There is video evidence that can support you. Generally in real casinos, if you win big, there will be a delay for payout as the surveillance staff check for anything suspicious in recordings. An organized team can easily avoid the attention if they know what to do. But I'm not going to discuss how we avoid detection here except to say one simply technique is splitting chips between players/people to avoid reporting thresholds.

Now for the important part: if there was a system that did not appear to be anything like advantage play, and the player won big, the casino would have no reason to suspect the big winnings were due to anything but luck. Compare roulette computers where you can only win with late bets, so you must disguise your bets with intentionally losing bets - which limits winnings. So your winnings are more limited. Now compare to something like a typical system with progression - and with such a system, it doesn't look suspicious at all. So the player can win much more without drawing any attention.

Putting it into context, an organized roulette computer team can win $5,000 - $10,000 in a typical small stakes casino usually without suspicion (much more is possible in higher stakes environments, without drawing too much attention). But if a player won twice this amount with typical system betting approaches, the casino would not get suspicious even if they won much more. And it would be much easier to win into the millions with the HG because you could play anywhere, online or real casinos, new or old wheels, bouncy balls or predictable balls -- there would be no significant limitations. So my point is if Turbo really had the HG, he could very easily be earning tens of millions in a short time. It would be very easy to avoid detection provided he kept each session below the reporting threshold, which is not hard to do. But instead what we get is turbo wasting weeks with fun money, instead of real money. If he could do it with real money on the same scale as fun money, he would be doing it. It's the same for everyone else who has the "HG".

The math is simple: payouts are lower than the odds. You cant use that to win. You cant change the payouts. You need to change the odds.

No casino "allows" electronics, because they easily beat casinos. That's my preferred method. I like to make it easy. And although it's "not allowed", it is still legal in about half of casinos. That's my choice, it doesn't affect anyone except the poor billionaire casino owners. I already explained there are ways to win without computers. I'll respond to turbo in next post.
So you are saying Steve, if I have a system that needs 7 to 1 to break even. And over several years it delivers around 11 to 1. Never even dips under 7 to 1 once over a 100 game sample. That is just pure luck. Okay then.

Back to panicking online casinos Steve. My argument remains. If these people are so smug in the knowledge that no mechanical system. Can beat them over the longrun. I.E they know house edge, table limits and mr variance. Will always show them a profit.

Why do they panic when someone wins a mere 500 units. Can you explain that?

Surely they would be saying to themselves enjoy your luck. In the end we are getting it all back then some?

ESPECIALLY if someone is running a system using a marty like me right? Nothing suspicious there. Nothing to worry about there. Its supposed to lose in the long run isnt it???

But panic they do. And panic they will. I have 10 online accounts Steve. Im going to see which one messes up their panties first and stops me. And at what point. Will it be 500 euro 5000 50000. Lets see.

But be sure of this Steve. At some point over the next 5 years. They will ALL want me out of there. Then I will have to carry on the old fashioned way. Put on my best suit twice a week. And go and make my money in walk in casinos.

Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: Steve on Jan 30, 11:55 PM 2018
So you are saying Steve, if I have a system that needs 7 to 1 to break even. And over several years it delivers around 11 to 1. Never even dips under 7 to 1 once over a 100 game sample. That is just pure luck. Okay then.

I dont know enough about your system to comment. Except to say its really not hard to win over 5,000 or even 20,000 spins from LUCK. It happens, just as we expect statistically. Keep in mind I won for a whole year with constantly play - around 5,000 spins. And I would let NOBODY tell me it was just from luck. Because I was arrogant and pigheaded about it, as we tend to be when young.

Back to panicking online casinos Steve. My argument remains. If these people are so smug in the knowledge that no mechanical system. Can beat them over the longrun. I.E they know house edge, table limits and mr variance. Will always show them a profit.

Well basically that's right. But there are more parts to it. For example, they know lucky aggressive progression can make them lose big. And some nline casinos even forbid progression betting in their terms of service. This isnt because you beat them long term. It's because they dont want anyone to have the chance of a huge run of luck.

Why do they panic when someone wins a mere 500 units. Can you explain that?

As I explained already. Its not a panic in those cases. Its more an observation of the account activity and style of play consistent with professional play. So the casino stops the player before they do any serious damage.

Surely they would be saying to themselves enjoy your luck. In the end we are getting it all back then some?

On the surface, they say "great going, well done". Then they give you a free room to stay longer, so you play more, and lose the money back to the casino.

ESPECIALLY if someone is running a system using a marty like me right? Nothing suspicious there. Nothing to worry about there. Its supposed to lose in the long run isnt it???

Yes that's correct. Although you are probabaly trying to be sarcastic, you're actually correct. Do you really think they are scared of the martingale? I've only seen an online casino worried about aggressive progression, but never a real casino. Still though, if there are super large bets, the floor manager is going to want to watch closely. Casinos can lose too. But the long term edge is in their favor.

But be sure of this Steve. At some point over the next 5 years. They will ALL want me out of there. Then I will have to carry on the old fashioned way. Put on my best suit twice a week. And go and make my money in walk in casinos.

Ok, I hope you do that.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: sentinel3 on Jan 31, 12:15 AM 2018
I dont know enough about your system to comment. Except to say its really not hard to win over 5,000 or even 20,000 spins from LUCK. It happens, just as we expect statistically. Keep in mind I won for a whole year with constantly play - around 5,000 spins. And I would let NOBODY tell me it was just from luck. Because I was arrogant and pigheaded about it, as we tend to be when young.

Well basically that's right. But there are more parts to it. For example, they know lucky aggressive progression can make them lose big. And some nline casinos even forbid progression betting in their terms of service. This isnt because you beat them long term. It's because they dont want anyone to have the chance of a huge run of luck.

As I explained already. Its not a panic in those cases. Its more an observation of the account activity and style of play consistent with professional play. So the casino stops the player before they do any serious damage.

On the surface, they say "great going, well done". Then they give you a free room to stay longer, so you play more, and lose the money back to the casino.

Yes that's correct. Although you are probabaly trying to be sarcastic, you're actually correct. Do you really think they are scared of the martingale? I've only seen an online casino worried about aggressive progression, but never a real casino. Still though, if there are super large bets, the floor manager is going to want to watch closely. Casinos can lose too. But the long term edge is in their favor.

Ok, I hope you do that.
So if i am taking just a 100 euro a week off one online casino each. I shouldnt be setting any alarm bells off then Steve.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: TurboGenius on Jan 31, 12:17 AM 2018
I doubt it. I dont think I could ever agree with logic like random is random, unless you mix random with random to make it not random, in which case it's unpredictable and cant be beaten.

That was pretty funny - but it wasn't what I said.
If I pick a listing where a very rare event happened - say 30 reds in a row
and another listing where a very rare even happened - say 20 reds in a row
and stick them together, it's no longer random. I made the list and it will now show
50 reds in a row because of me - not because it EVER could happen.
So someone's testing fails against a pieced together group of spins from table 1,2,3
when in reality they would never face that NON random condition.
You're only argument is that that "Well, 50 in a row could happen !".
C'mon. Anything can happen. 10,000 reds in a row could happen - so you''re willing
to say that unless a method can beat a run of 10,000 reds in a row it's a loser - because
10,000 reds in a row "could" happen. ? That's nonsense.
Just because you take random list A and combine it however you want with random list B - that does not make it random now, I'm sorry. Once a person interferes with the results it's not random.
Hell, by definition roulette itself in a casino isn't random (it's "random enough")
You can't have a mechanical wheel and a ball, and a human all interact and change variables - it's no longer random. But that's ok - Math remains.
My method beats the math - on RNG or at a table.

Ok so again you're saying random is good. Random means changing the odds are impossible, which is 35 always being less than 37, which means you lose.

Yes, 35 is always less than 37 and it doesn't mean I lose.
It means that the equation you use to figure the house edge is right - the equation I use to win is also right. If you can accept and figure out how we are BOTH right - you've got it.
Title: Re: @ turbo
Post by: sentinel3 on Jan 31, 01:02 AM 2018
That was pretty funny - but it wasn't what I said.
If I pick a listing where a very rare event happened - say 30 reds in a row
and another listing where a very rare even happened - say 20 reds in a row
and stick them together, it's no longer random. I made the list and it will now show
50 reds in a row because of me - not because it EVER could happen.
So someone's testing fails against a pieced together group of spins from table 1,2,3
when in reality they would never face that NON random condition.
You're only argument is t