Notto, Iggy, Ben, Shaun, Ozon, Maui, Buffalo, Let Me Win, Nichedelico, Elite, and several others posting, nice to see. :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
Quote from: Mako on Jan 23, 06:44 PM 2019
Notto, Iggy, Ben, Shaun, Ozon, Maui, Buffalo, Let Me Win, Nichedelico, Elite, and several others posting, nice to see. :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
That means the hg is just around the corner ?
Yes, I discovered it.
Strangely the HG turns out to be a paradox.
Let Me Win you have discovered it ?????
Quote from: Mako on Jan 23, 06:44 PM 2019
Notto, Iggy, Ben, Shaun, Ozon, Maui, Buffalo, Let Me Win, Nichedelico, Elite, and several others posting, nice to see. :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
Who is Shaun?
Quote from: Roulettebeater on Jan 24, 10:12 AM 2019
That means the hg is just around the corner ?
Correct. What we failed to do in 2006,2007,2008,2009,2010,2011,2012,2013,2014,2015,2016,2017, annnnnnnnnnnnnd 2018, we will surely do in 2019. There is no doubt! :wink:
Quote from: Bigbroben on Jan 24, 12:55 PM 2019
Who is Shaun?
Shhhh, it's a super secret. Hint: This mysterious individual does great research, including within Excel, and approaches the game in the right way...logically.
Quote from: Mako on Jan 24, 06:37 PM 2019
Correct. What we failed to do in 2006,2007,2008,2009,2010,2011,2012,2013,2014,2015,2016,2017, annnnnnnnnnnnnd 2018, we will surely do in 2019. There is no doubt! :wink:
Shhhh, it's a super secret. Hint: This mysterious individual does great research, including within Excel, and approaches the game in the right way...logically.
You're not even remotely close. You're chasing your tail, while trapped in the gambler's fallacy. The same old recycled ideas.
Quote from: The General on Jan 25, 01:06 PM 2019
You're not even remotely close. You're chasing your tail, while trapped in the gambler's fallacy. The same old recycled ideas.
Well shit, that's a wrap boys, shut 'er down, no point in proceeding I guess... :twisted:
Remember, it's not the destination...it's the journey. As long as you're not foolish enough to throw away actual money, might as well have some fun looking at fallacy plays to see if any of them allow you to dodge the raindrops enough to get out alive. :love:
Quote from: Mako on Jan 25, 01:54 PM 2019
Well shit, that's a wrap boys, shut 'er down, no point in proceeding I guess... :twisted:
Remember, it's not the destination...it's the journey. As long as you're not foolish enough to throw away actual money, might as well have some fun looking at fallacy plays to see if any of them allow you to dodge the raindrops enough to get out alive. :love:
Mako,
Do you believe that Turbo's system works?
Quote from: The General on Jan 25, 10:35 PM 2019
Mako,
Do you believe that Turbo's system works?
I do. Some may not like how he goes about detailing it, but I’ve tested enough of both the MI and 1-5-25 repeater methods he plays to have seen strong results over time using spins from spielbank Duisburg tables. I do not know how he played this week using a $10 flat bet on repeaters, so I can’t speak to that particular method in terms of potential.
But on the other two he’s detailed, when I do random tests using his same progressions but without any of his bet selection, just using random numbers or locations, they perform at house edge (lose)....validating that at least in the short term, he’s winning how he’s playing.
Now does that mean it “can’t loseâ€, as in ever? Unknown.
So far it hasn’t, but I haven’t done more than 10k spins on either of the ways that I believe he plays. And I don’t have his method down 100% either, he’s disclosed enough to feel confident that it’s close, and the results speak to that, but without him certifying how I’m playing, I can’t be sure.
I will tell you this though, both you and Steve have said previously that you understand how he plays exactly, yet I can tell you from reading how you beIieve he’s doing it...you’re not correct.
It’s not betting every repeater to continue (as in “twos become threes†and all that). If you had his exact selection your testing might be showing some results. Again, that’s not to say it’s infalible, I haven’t done enough work to know.
I recall Steve’s story about him using a method years ago that didn’t fail for over a year...he thought he had a non-AP grail...until it failed spectacularly. So that cautionary tale always sticks in my mind that you can never do enough testing before saying something is 100%.
I know exactly how Turbo bets. By the way, the rules change based on how he's being cornered by various people. ::)
If you believe in his system, then let's have a friendly challenge in LV or some where else in the US.
I'll play my method and you play Turbos. The loser pays the others travel expenses (air and or hotel)
In order to win the challenge, I must win at least three times as much as you win in units.
Ideally I'd like to play at least two thousand spins. (And no, they don't all have to be played in one day. )
What do you say?
-The General
Quote from: The General on Jan 26, 12:03 PM 2019
I know exactly how Turbo bets. By the way, the rules change based on how he's being cornered by various people. ::)
If you believe in his system, then let's have a friendly challenge in LV or some where else in the US.
I'll play my method and you play Turbos. The loser pays the others travel expenses (air and or hotel)
In order to win the challenge, I must win at least three times as much as you win in units.
Ideally I'd like to play at least two thousand spins. (And no, they don't all have to be played in one day. )
What do you say?
-The General
Let’s not forget who the enemies are CASINOS
Not people on forums
Quote from: The General on Jan 26, 12:03 PM 2019
I know exactly how Turbo bets. By the way, the rules change based on how he's being cornered by various people. ::)
If you believe in his system, then let's have a friendly challenge in LV or some where else in the US.
I'll play my method and you play Turbos. The loser pays the others travel expenses (air and or hotel)
In order to win the challenge, I must win at least three times as much as you win in units.
Ideally I'd like to play at least two thousand spins. (And no, they don't all have to be played in one day. )
What do you say?
-The General
I feel he's been consistent in the core mechanics he's using, even as far back as 2013 he's saying similar things in regards to the original method he touted (repeaters). Not much has changed in terms of the overall philosophy he's claiming to be the foundation of that particular method.
I know bago is in that thread trying to demonstrate how his exact words and the like somehow don't match, particularly about previous statements regarding progressions v. flat bets, but he's parsing it with too fine a microscope. When I look at the exchanges bago is referencing I can see he's reaching....Turbo has been pretty clear if you're not splitting hairs or if English isn't your second language perhaps.
Would definitely be up for the challenge, would be fun for us and we'd have a great time I'm sure, but I'm just beginning in doing the longterm testing I would want to complete before I ever played any method, let alone do bets based on it.
Plus, I respect any creator's desire to keep aspects of the way they play private, I wouldn't do something like play MPR with it, or demonstrate it for others live. Not that I think you'd care about it even if you lost, you'd likely believe it was lucky or a fluke, which is fine, but it's not my place to show how others play if the creator hasn't publicly decided to share the system. :thumbsup:
Quote from: Mako on Jan 26, 02:15 PM 2019
I feel he's been consistent in the core mechanics he's using, even as far back as 2013 he's saying similar things in regards to the original method he touted (repeaters). Not much has changed in terms of the overall philosophy he's claiming to be the foundation of that particular method.
He's all over the place. He claims he doesn't use triggers, but technically he does. He claims that he doesn't use past spins, but then he says he doesn't bet a number until it's hit. There's absurdity after absurdity. Oxymoron after oxymoron.
QuoteI know bago is in that thread trying to demonstrate how his exact words and the like somehow don't match, particularly about previous statements regarding progressions v. flat bets, but he's parsing it with too fine a microscope. When I look at the exchanges bago is referencing I can see he's reaching....Turbo has been pretty clear if you're not splitting hairs or if English isn't your second language perhaps.
Again, Turbo's claims are wild and all over the place.
QuoteWould definitely be up for the challenge, would be fun for us and we'd have a great time I'm sure, but I'm just beginning in doing the longterm testing I would want to complete before I ever played any method, let alone do bets based on it.
The challenge...It's all good fun.
For what it's worth, I've already demonstrated that the system is silly. It's squirrely largely because he claims that he relies on the game being random to win. If a wheel was biased, you'd have a better chance at long term success, provided that you ran hit frequency distribution betting and set the betting thresholds much higher. For example only betting numbers if they're significantly above expectation, rather than just two hits above expectation within 37 spins and betting an amount that was a multiplier x the hit frequency.
QuotePlus, I respect any creator's desire to keep aspects of the way they play private, I wouldn't do something like play MPR with it, or demonstrate it for others live. Not that I think you'd care about it even if you lost, you'd likely believe it was lucky or a fluke, which is fine, but it's not my place to show how others play if the creator hasn't publicly decided to share the system. :thumbsup:
I wouldn't call him the creator. People have been chasing hot numbers since the beginning of the game. There's nothing new or original about betting numbers that have hit one, two, three, etc. hits above break even. Running an up as you lose progression like he does is just called "chasing your losses." Years back Turbo was all about chasing sleepers until I convinced him that it was a really dumb idea, and one way by which he could actually lose at a rate that exceeded the house edge.
Now for the logic...
Turbo claims that he relies on random to win.
If the game is random and there are 38 pockets, but the house payout is only paying for 36 pockets then you're going to come up short. The reason is obvious....there are tooooo many pockets on the wheel and there's always 38 pockets on the wheel at each spin, regardless of what hits on the previous spins. Again his problem is he absurdly claims that he relies on "random" in order to win. If he was smart, then he'd claim that his system would only work on a live wheel, because all live wheels can be bias to various degrees. But no, he missed that chance and is boxed in by his oxymoronic like claim.
I've already proven that his system fails using my simulator. I ran a quick 20k spins and it was essentially at expectation. (I think Turbo and others have maybe run a few hundred spins..if even that.) If I wanted to, I could run millions of trials, but there's no reason to do so. There's simply no reason to do so. There's no "proof of concept" as to why the system should work. ::)
-The General
Definitely a better idea playing repeaters than sleepers, and that's all that can be said in his favour. And that only applies to live conditions, not trials on a RNG.
Quote from: Firefox on Jan 27, 06:57 AM 2019And that only applies to live conditions, not trials on a RNG.
Why Bookies RNG plays perfect or don't you trust RNG's
(link:://:.pichost.org/images/2019/01/27/sourcee491b.png) (link:://:.pichost.org/image/Oazgt)
+204 units; Just watched the trot; something the General and perhaps you can't do
Quote from: nottophammer on Jan 27, 07:23 AM 2019
Why Bookies RNG plays perfect or don't you trust RNG's
RNG is a negative expectation game, and I wouldn't trust certain ones anyway.
Live game I think backing repeaters is better than backing sleepers for the sole reason you may have identified some temporary bias, but I personally I wouldn't back either.