This is a warning to all. Stop wasting time looking for a statistical EDGE! There is NONE!
For the last few month I tested so many ideas to see if there would be statistical edge somewhere. For example Turbo's horse race looked promising but after programming everything in excel and testing 1000's of spins the return is always 1:37.
For example I tested the 5 top finishers in a 5 (37) cycle race. After 1000's of spins the hit rate would return to 1:37. Yes sometimes you would have top performers going to 12 or above hits, and yes you would be on them. BUT because you dont KNOW which of the 11's are going to 12 you would have to bet all 11's.
This holds true for all 2's going to 3 and all 3's going to 4 etc etc etc. So sometimes the first 2 getting to 3 and betting all 2's coming out will go over 37 and sometimes they will go under 37. And after 1000's of spins they WILL return to 1:37
Turbo will probably answer that he is not betting all 2's going to 3. But if you bet not all then you randomly have to select a few 2's and this will give you not a better statistical edge either (I tested this)
Turbo spoke about all sort of nonsense for example here's a funny one:
Turbo and I will sit at the roulette table and I say to Turbo, I will bet that if I choose 12 random numbers after the first cycle is over a few of them will not show! Turbos says that can not happen, thats voodoo you will have to wait 1 cycle and pick the 12 numbers that not have shown.
After the first cycle is over a few of the random numbers I have choosen did not show. Turbo's face is green how can this be??? I turn to him and say the 5 numbers that did show up from the numbers I choose, I will pick 5 random numbers and I will bet a few of them will not show in Cycle 2.
And hot dang after cycle 2 is over 2 of my randomly choosen numbers did not show!!! Turbo has passed out on the floor next to me.
Moral of the story is. If you have an idea test it for 1000's of spins and not only that do another test with random patterns or numbers or areas it will NOT GIVE YOU BETTER RESULTS!
Stop wasting time and being a fool, play for fun but dont think you can get a statistical edge!
At last, a sensible post. :thumbsup:
You used excel's random function?
Yes and I used data from random.org the results are the same...
You seem to be saying that because YOU were unable to find a statistical edge in your tests that non exist.
You could consider the EVEN chances...
The theory is that number of 2 in a row or more = number of SINGLES
But in the category "more than 2 in a row" there are also very very long streaks (100 in a row,…200 in a row….300 in a row….,that we 'll never see in our life)
Because of that SINGLES hit a bit more than x in a row because they must take an advantage for compensating very very long streaks that theoretically exist but no player will never see.
Clear?
Test with RX extreme confirms this theory but not enough to offset - 1,35% house advantage that becomes around -1%
Quote from: Let Me Win on Oct 05, 04:26 AM 2019
You seem to be saying that because YOU were unable to find a statistical edge in your tests that non exist.
I know for a fact there is no edge statistically. I have a gift of thinking way outside the box and tested them all rigorously in the end they all fall back to 1:37. Dont get me wrong some ideas can show positive for a long while, but play them long enough and you will see them return to the starting point and below.
If anybody claims they have, they should test the same idea at random for 1000's of spins and the data will show it makes no difference.
The big problem however is most people here dont know how to program their ideas. And they test for a couple of hundreds spins and they think they have something.
Quote from: Let Me Win on Oct 05, 04:32 AM 2019
You could consider the EVEN chances...
The theory is that number of 2 in a row or more = number of SINGLES
But in the category "more than 2 in a row" there are also very very long streaks (100 in a row,…200 in a row….300 in a row….,that we 'll never see in our life)
Because of that SINGLES hit a bit more than x in a row because they must take an advantage for compensating very very long streaks that theoretically exist but no player will never see.
Clear?
Test with RX extreme confirms this theory but not enough to offset - 1,35% house advantage that becomes around -1%
You just showed an error a lot of other people make. You are comparing apples and oranges. You cant compare the set of 1 against the set of 2 and bigger.
Test the set of 1 , 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,8 for example (forget the zero) just play 36 numbers or just a coin flip. After 1000's of spins there is no statistical edge of playing either of these sets!
Are u saying u tested 1000 spin and got nothing? What did u actually look for?
@ Ka2, but do you understand why you haven't been able to get a statistical edge? If you don't, you might be tempted to try again, and spend your whole like looking for something which doesn't exist, like the alchemists of old did.
You should understand that creating a gambling system is impossible (link:s://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impossibility_of_a_gambling_system), when all you have is random numbers.
Quote from: Ka2 on Oct 03, 08:30 AM 2019
This is a warning to all. Stop wasting time looking for a statistical EDGE! There is NONE!
For the last few month I tested so many ideas to see if there would be statistical edge somewhere. For example Turbo's horse race looked promising but after programming everything in excel and testing 1000's of spins the return is always 1:37.
For example I tested the 5 top finishers in a 5 (37) cycle race. After 1000's of spins the hit rate would return to 1:37. Yes sometimes you would have top performers going to 12 or above hits, and yes you would be on them. BUT because you dont KNOW which of the 11's are going to 12 you would have to bet all 11's.
U r right. After certain spin all numbers may come to equal. U r still looking for wrong thing. U need to look for inequality and exploit it. Its not always the top finisher give u profit all the time. The last boy can give u big profit when u need. There is a way to know which 5s will be 6s , not always but most of the time to make enough profit.
Quote from: Joe on Oct 05, 03:27 PM 2019You should understand that creating a gambling system is impossible, when all you have is random numbers.
And that's why system players are stuck at 1in 37, and they think experienced players are "obsessed" with 1 in 37.
No amount of repeaters, hot numbers, cold numbers, progressions, line-crossing, patterns you think you see, "have to happen events" and all that bullshit is going to change it. 1 in 37 is what you get with random.
Quote from: Steve on Oct 05, 11:02 PM 2019
No amount of repeaters, hot numbers, cold numbers, progressions, line-crossing, patterns you think you see, "have to happen events" and all that bullshit is going to change it. 1 in 37 is what you get with random. :thumbsup:
Shut down the systems forum.
Do it to back up what you just wrote.
Don't write trash excuse below.
No reply required.
Action speak louder than words.
Just do it.
Quote from: Joe on Oct 05, 03:27 PM 2019
You should understand that creating a gambling system is impossible (link:s://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impossibility_of_a_gambling_system), when all you have is random numbers.
Quote from: Joe on Oct 02, 11:42 AM 2019
But I do play because I like creating and ANALYSING systems and using them makes roulette a lot more fun. I'm not really interested in AP because that would be 'work'
Why insult your math education ?
Steve, Joe, nothing personal.
Zero intent of personal attack.
Not messing with your rc business either.
Quote from: luckyfella on Oct 05, 11:32 PM 2019Shut down the systems forum.
Why? Some people want to discuss their theories, without others explaining their errors. That's what it's for.
Does people not knowing better mean we should shut down the internet? No, so don't say stupid things.
Quote from: luckyfella on Oct 05, 11:32 PM 2019Do it to back up what you just wrote.
Your logic is asinine. Backing up what I wrote is providing proof of what i say, which I have - many times.
Quote from: luckyfella on Oct 05, 11:32 PM 2019Action speak louder than words.
Just do it.
Actions do speak louder than words. That's why you aren't out winning real money.
Quote from: luckyfella on Oct 05, 11:42 PM 2019Not messing with your rc business either.
Asinine. It's the "go-to" comment when nothing backs your system logic. Anyone interested in computers or AP is well past the nonsense you're still stuck at.
Quote from: Steve on Oct 06, 12:04 AM 2019
Why? Some people want to discuss their theories, without others explaining their errors. That's what it's for.
Quote from: Joe on Oct 05, 03:27 PM 2019
You should understand that creating a gambling system is impossible (link:s://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impossibility_of_a_gambling_system), when all you have is random numbers.
The dumb just got dumber.
Try tell a better lie.
If you have no way of changing prediction accuracy to have better than random odds, then no system can work long term. And the notion that you need only play short term is rubbish. Can 100 players all play short-term and win? Can the few winners play short-term each day and have the same result?
Random means completely unpredictable. It means you are stuck with payouts below the odds.
But inexperienced players confuse basic statistics with predictability. For example, saying rubbish like "roulette is predictable because there will never be 37 unique numbers in 37 spins". I'm not going to explain again why it's a boneheaded statement.
Lucky, your knowledge is extremely poor. I'm saying this not as insult. You really need to work on the basics. I suggest :.roulettephysics.com/roulette-strategy/ but there are many websites explaining much the same. Either you arent reading them, or not understanding. So just keep playing and learn for yourself.
Really please do shut down the forum.
Every single system thread always turns into why this can't or won't work.
So as nothing works what's the point in being here?
Maybe we should call it the "everything works, dont criticise" forum. Is that better?
Wait, thats what the system player board is for.
Get it through your skull. If your accuracy is random, your payout is below the odds and you'll lose. Nobody experienced is saying nothing works.
Is there any way it could be made simpler for you?
The system board is locked 🔒
It's not that I don't understand it is that roulette is a hobby and systems are entertainment for me and many others.
Quote from: Let Me Win on Oct 06, 03:29 AM 2019The system board is locked
You must request access, to ensure only likeminded people can post there.
Quote from: Let Me Win on Oct 06, 03:29 AM 2019It's not that I don't understand it is that roulette is a hobby and systems are entertainment for me and many others.
And that changes how roulette works?
Quote from: luckyfella on Oct 05, 11:42 PM 2019Why insult your math education ?
What
would be insulting my education is if I asserted that you
can get an edge with systems. At least I'm being consistent. And just because you can't get a long term statistical edge, doesn't mean that you can't design systems which aim to satisfy particularly short term goals, or your individual preferences and tolerance for risk.
And if it bothers you so much that there is 'negativity' on the forums, why not just post your system or show us the mathematical proof? That would silence the naysayers. Come to think of it, why should the negativity bother you when you have the HG? If you really had it you could care less, unless you want everyone to know what a genius you are, but that's easily fixed : just share the HG or post the proof. ;)
Quote from: Joe on Oct 05, 03:27 PM 2019
You should understand that creating a gambling system is impossible (link:s://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impossibility_of_a_gambling_system), when all you have is random numbers.
Excellent link! I did not know about this theorem. It should be a sticky for everyone to read... will it help.... probably not most people here would still think they can beat the odds...
Its not a new theory at all. It has been said here countless times. And in many different ways.
Quote from: Joe on Oct 06, 03:56 AM 2019
why not just post your system or show us the mathematical proof? That would silence the naysayers.
Keep dreaming :wink:
If you really had it you could care less, unless you want everyone to know what a genius you are
There is only one roulette genius, he is TurboGenius.
Hi TG, I know you read forums.
We want you to know we finally understood the shit you wrote.
We are average guys.
Our combined brain power took us more than a year to crack it.
Also, to let you know that your shit has spawned a few of our own methods based on your teachings. This will not be possible had you not taken the trouble to write those posts.
Thank you sir, TG.
Quote from: luckyfella on Oct 06, 05:12 AM 2019Our combined brain power took us more than a year to crack it.
It takes average intelligent and attentive people about 60 seconds to finish. But you're not even half finished. You dont understand the logic, so you're doing it the hard way... which is lots of testing, losing money, wondering what secret you're missing, back to the drawing board, finding the part you thought you were missing, trying again, and keep going in circles.
You dont know it yet, but you're clueless. Turbo was just a liar and inexperienced fool.
Good luck.
Quote from: luckyfella on Oct 06, 05:12 AM 2019Keep dreaming
lol, I'm not the dreamer here, you are, and all the other Turbo fan boys. It's not that hard to understand Turbo's system or ones like it, but if you do the actual tests as Ka2 and others have done you'll see they don't work. Hot number and repeater systems have been tested to death and no variations of them can work. Turbo bets no more than 4 numbers and uses a progression. Systems like that can stay in the black for 1000s or even 100s of thousands of spins. But they're not long term winners.
TG, gamblingforums is a toxic swamp.
Explains why I chose to post here.
TG, very proud to be called a Turbo fanboy. :love: :love: :love:
Thank you steve for hosting my posts. :thumbsup:
Quote from: Joe on Oct 06, 05:26 AM 2019
lol, I'm not the dreamer here, you are, and all the other Turbo fan boys. It's not that hard to understand Turbo's system or ones like it, but if you do the actual tests as Ka2 and others have done you'll see they don't work. Hot number and repeater systems have been tested to death and no variations of them can work. Turbo bets no more than 4 numbers and uses a progression. Systems like that can stay in the black for 1000s or even 100s of thousands of spins. But they're not long term winners.
So true I had some tests where (all flatbetting) at some point I was up more than 10.000 units! after 1000's and 1000's more spins I was back at zero.
Quote from: luckyfella on Oct 06, 05:27 AM 2019Thank you steve for hosting my posts
Actually you're welcome. I always try to be unbiased and fair. We dont agree on things, but so what. Yes gamblingforums is a mess. It exists only for traffic, without regard for integrity. So it thrives on drama, not productivity. Its admin is a pos. I learned that first hand. Without being biased, I think all my forums are balanced and fair, but its impossible to make everyone happy.
And turbo is welcome to post here. He chose not to, probably because the questions were too revealing and he didn't have answers. So he moved to gf. But soon he got the same questions, and justified heat, and is barely around there either.
A forum is about open discussion. But there are basic rules to better ensure productivity, instead of a cesspool of scams, spam, egos, etc.
Quote from: Steve on Oct 06, 06:53 AM 2019
And turbo is welcome to post here. He chose not to, probably because the questions were too revealing and he didn't have answers. So he moved to gf. But soon he got the same questions, and justified heat, and is barely around there either.
A forum is about open discussion. But there are basic rules to better ensure productivity, instead of a cesspool of scams, spam, egos, etc.
I have no issues with you steve.
Despite whatever is written about you on the net. None of my business.
And no issues with your rc business that's already more than a decade old.
Besides your repetitive post about basic statistics and name-calling that can be annoying, and we do disagree in certain specific areas of math, you have been a good forum host. :thumbsup:
Just want you to know that.
There will always be some who claim what lucky and others are claiming. They lose all the mathematical and other arguments but they have one trump card, which is : they can't demonstrate or prove their claims because it would shut down all the casinos! The apparent plausibility of their claims relies not on what they actually demonstrate, but on what they don't, ie : 'you can't prove I don't have a winning system!' ;D
IMO it's not much of a trump card, because it's really just an evasion, and not a very good one. According to Turbo, it's not that hard to figure out the alleged grail from his hints, but variations on his ideas aren't new at all and have certainly been around since the invention of roulette. And yet, mysteriously, the casinos are still doing great business in spite of large numbers of people using those systems.
Casinos will never go bankrupt, unless enough of the population in their region cant afford to gamble anymore.
Casino surveillance is the ultimate limit to a players income. If a player had the hg, they'd eventually be detected and banned. But if an organized team took large sums in small parts, that would make life much harder for casinos. They would still probably notice the imexplicable losses, depending on how covert the team was. The hg has never been suspected in the entire history of casino gambling. The closest thing is some players being banned after large wins. But after such wins, its actually much more common for casinos to shower you with gifts like free rooms, to get you playing more, to lose winnings.
With AP its different because casinos recognize a real threat. Rather than give free accommodation, you'd more likely be banned or put on the griffin db.
Still with AP, the limit is what you can win without being detected. Its easy to win a few thousand. But winning hundreds of thousands takes ideal conditions and very careful planning.
Quote from: Steve on Oct 06, 08:16 AM 2019But winning hundreds of thousands takes ideal conditions and very careful planning
This is the truth. So let’s not say go make your millions to people claiming HG. Let’s ask them questions to prove their claim. And ofc I don’t think anyone here or in any forum has anything to prove as it’s all empty claims. Pls b aware of those empty claims.
They dont have to proof their claims, then they would have to say how their magic hg works. Nobody is going to do that here.
The only thing I ask is that they test their claim themselves with random numbers.
So for instance their system says they have to bet 10 specific numbers in spin nr 5 choose 10 random numbers in spin nr5. Test the random choosen numbers against the specific choosen numbers and you will see it wont matter one iota after 1000's of spins.
I allready told turbo his examples are exactly 100% the same with random choosen numbers. Of course he will not respond to those findings...because he can test them him self and will see that its true... now how to respond to that...
Another example of turbo the 1000 spin 37 people test.
Let all 37 pick 1 number, but no one can choose the same number twice let them all choose a random nr each spin after 1000 spins you get exactly the same data! As if they had stayed with the same nr... again nothing special...
Or another example like his horse race... in each new spin, who's winning is reset completely. In roulette, this means each spin is independent, and with 1 in 37 odds.
He said many things that were plain wrong. He has clearly poor understanding. It was disappointing to see a long time member be so full of shit.
Point was ofcourse he did not look at 1 spins but a 37 spin cycles. I have to admit that looked promising. But i did not change the hit rate. You would think for example after 5 cycles being on the top 5 numbers would give you an edge. but it doesnt.
Going from 4 to 5 and from 5 to 6 etc etc, you have to bet all numbers that are on 4 to get to 5. Yes you can only bet a few 4's but that wont give you an edge either. And sometimes you only have a few 4's going to 5 and sometimes you have more and also the waiting for the first 5 increases. Do this for 1000's of spins and you'l get 1 in 37 on average. EVEN with spin cycles it doest change the odds! It's sad but true unfortunately...
I also agree there's no edge having tested the front runners theory a long time ago - always breaking even when excluding the zero.
However, if there were no table limits then we could win after doubling up X times (!) - or by playing within a number cycle where the repeat is guaranteed within our lifetime over 25 spins maximum - since nobody has ever encountered a deadlock at spin 36, etc.
So if there is a solution then it has to involve bets spread over multiple spins that stays within the house limits. If not then where's the mathematical proof that you need, say, minimal table limits of 20K to win or 10K or 40K - and that having only 500 or 1K is insufficient?
Progression without betting limits would win even with random bets. Turbos system was bet selection with random accuracy and progression.
Flat betting only over the course of the last 2 casino visits (I don't do weekends).
Worth mentioning -
1) Flat bet only - 1 unit per played number. .....TurboGenius
link:s://:.gamblingforums(dot)com/threads/ramblings-of-the-inept-for-the-misfits.15908/
I believe you guys do read english, right ?
Lucky, turbo kept changing his claims. Most prominently, he said he used aggressive progression. But progression changes only the rate of loss, if your bet accuracy is random.
Quote from: luckyfella on Oct 06, 10:43 AM 2019
Flat betting only over the course of the last 2 casino visits (I don't do weekends).
Worth mentioning -
1) Flat bet only - 1 unit per played number. .....TurboGenius
link:s://:.gamblingforums(dot)com/threads/ramblings-of-the-inept-for-the-misfits.15908/
I believe you guys do read english, right ?
I anawered there now read
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Oct 06, 10:16 AM 2019
I also agree there's no edge having tested the front runners theory a long time ago - always breaking even when excluding the zero.
However, if there were no table limits then we could win after doubling up X times (!) - or by playing within a number cycle where the repeat is guaranteed within our lifetime over 25 spins maximum - since nobody has ever encountered a deadlock at spin 36, etc.
So if there is a solution then it has to involve bets spread over multiple spins that stays within the house limits. If not then where's the mathematical proof that you need, say, minimal table limits of 20K to win or 10K or 40K - and that having only 500 or 1K is insufficient?
I agree! But this also is valid for using 37 random numbers as your base set do you agree?
If you would have enough money, and there was no table limit you would always win. Betting the set 1 to 37 or 37 random numbers...
Quote from: Ka2 on Oct 06, 11:19 AM 2019
I anawered there now read
Ka, you can't test something which is not revealed to you.
By inference, this betselection is not seen on forum make sense ?
Pretty sure everyone knows whatever shape and form betselection posted on forum fails, 100% of them. I give you my personal guarantee, you don't have to do the test.
I am going make one last try to make you understand.
Roulette spins is suppose to be random, meaning future spins is independent and unbias.
If this is true for YOU, YOU have zero chance of winning with your fancy systems bet or creative MM.
They lose for certain, 100%.
Don't waste your time coding, testing and analysing. Loser is the certainty.
All that short term winner talk is bullshit losers eventually.
The only way for systems betting to have positive edge is to find conditions where future spins are dependent on historic spins. If you can't find this, your bullshit system is a 100% certain loser.
Focus your discussion on this topic of dependence. The rest is bullshit.
If you think there is no such bullshit dependence, good on you. Pls stop all those testing, analysing bullshit. It fails.
Bullshit MM fails.
Claiming magical MM to somehow win a losing betselection is the biggest misleading bullshit on forums. This call out for the MM addicts.
I don't blame you calling bullshit claims posted on forum that there is this dependent condition. No I don't.
You must also know that no one who found this dependence will ever post proof of this claim.
It's a deadlock.
You can say ignorance, bad testing, contradiction, mistake, uneducated, delusional or whatever.
It does not change a thing.
Either it exist or don't.
No matter what name calling you do or whatever sceptic opinion you post on forums.
My last post on this topic.
Take it whichever way you chose.
Quote from: luckyfella on Oct 06, 01:14 PM 2019Claiming magical MM to somehow win a losing betselection is the biggest misleading bullshit on forums. This call out for the MM addicts.
Turbo has admitted that his system doesn't work without an aggressive progression. He never claimed it wins flat betting. Unless he's changed his mind... again.
But I agree you should focus on bet selection primarily. MM alone won't cut it.
How could 'bet selection' work when we all admit that roulette is nothing but random. How can you pick a number based on previously picked ones? We all know that after 8 blacks in a row there is still a 50/50 chance for another black, but having 9 blacks in a row is a rare event. So, isn't maybe a good start to bet against a pattern and change the pattern after every cycle? However, they all even out eventually...
A long time ago I did tests on RX, one of the TURBO theories, waiting for last sleeper number, after first hit play 24 spins, completely flat, I played many hundred sessions and the results were very positive, this method is very hard for real play and in longrun can lose, she made money despite everything.
Quote from: Serendipity on Oct 06, 03:24 PM 2019
How could 'bet selection' work when we all admit that roulette is nothing but random. How can you pick a number based on previously picked ones? We all know that after 8 blacks in a row there is still a 50/50 chance for another black, but having 9 blacks in a row is a rare event. So, isn't maybe a good start to bet against a pattern and change the pattern after every cycle? However, they all even out eventually...
You do realize that you are suggesting "gambler's fallacy" don't you?
If you want a method to play off of what you are seeing then try considering flat betting in synergy with win streaks. You can make bet selections that are not funded. There is a way to make perfect sense of that. If you go thru a losing streak of bet selections that cost you nothing and you conversely go into a winning phase with funded bets then you can grind your way to a winning session. This is doable without a capacity for prediction if you perfect the skill. People here are doing just that.
You can know when you are in a win streak. You can know when you are in a losing streak. Still there are people here that don't believe that.
Yeah, basically everything makes sense. There is wisdom in your sentence, but how to master that? How do I know whether is a losing or winning streak? Give me more than that please.
I wasn't suggesting a gambler's fallacy, but what would be the odds at 'guessing' or maybe 'not guessing' an always different string of 8 EC events. I know, it would be the same old martingale...
I wish I could learn more from you, enlighten me, please.
Try here:
Quote from: gizmotron2 on Sep 15, 09:07 AM 2019
I think that I need to clear something up for those that are not clear on strategy.
link:s://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=26302.msg231070#msg231070
There are people here that are looking into something.
:.gamblingforums dot com/threads/reading-randomness.14733/
Quote from: Serendipity on Oct 06, 03:24 PM 2019How could 'bet selection' work when we all admit that roulette is nothing but random.
I wasn't making any assumptions about playing systems, AP, randomness or anything else. Just saying that if you want to increase predictive accuracy, or win rate, then bet selection is paramount. All MM does is manipulate stakes and can't have any effect on predictive accuracy.
I don't believe that roulette is 'nothing but random'. It's random relative to some data and nonrandom relative to other data. That's how VB, for example, can work.
I still get many questions about TG. As in...do you still play his way? Easy answer....No.
The only thing i do and doing for a long time now is using my eyes. Bet 10 to 15 numbers on the racetrack. If i cant read the dealer , i dont bet. Does it works ? It sure does. But its not as fun as playing systems. In fact its hard work focus on that Wheel. But the pay out is great . :thumbsup:
Quote from: denzie on Oct 08, 03:41 AM 2019The only thing i do and doing for a long time now is using my eyes.
(link:s://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=26329.0;attach=41945;image)
I'm really tired of riddles about the method TURBO uses.
Another topic has appeared on another forum.
I will write here openly what I think the method looks like.
From horse racing I concluded that we are playing the leader.
It will be from the beginning of the session a dozen with the most hits.
How do I choose numbers?
I work a dozen on the streets, if 2 different Hits numbers, I play the third number, this way we will play from 1-4 numbers.
I'm finishing sessions on hit.
But there are a few unknowns how to play during the change of leader.
Everything was discussed in detail in old the turbo thread here. His nonsense became obvious, so he left. Turbo is completely full of shit.
But do you wonder why people go back to it. There is always a difference between reality and perception. Seems like perception wins over reality on people who are desperate. Logic takes a back seat when you put heart ahead of your brain. Turbo is gone but there will be at least another 10 year someone or other will stumble on his posts and try to search more on it. Why not delete his posts Steve if we all care too much about people getting wrong advice.
Quote from: Ka2,Second you do agree that putting X ( your way of selecting numbers) in Y ( horse race sets ) and Y is not performing better than random. You do not need y to win! You already win with X alone ( what you already said you feed non random numbers in Y so you already win with X so whats the point you still use Y???)
You are using logic. So what you say fits. But Turbo must be using something else. He's not using math. We all know that won't beat Roulette. I doubt that he will ever say what he is using to a point of making it clear. But I wonder why this new working method is now the one if the last one works? Why does he keep searching?
Let's just take the example above and just forget about Y because X wins. I can take random on random to use as a bet selection and still beat Roulette to smithereens. It all comes down to the effectiveness of the moment. If you can't see clusters ( or "lumps") as someone just called randomness lumpy, then you don't have to fund times when you can't see a favorable patch (lump). The actual bet selection is meaningless as most math centrist or math oriented players, theorists, and, gambling enthusiasts would all agree on. By using random on random I surrender using an identifiable reason for a selection and just let randomness itself make the next bet selection. In other words this really means that the selection does not matter.
I use trends and patterns because I can see them. They don't matter though. But what they do for me is they show me when they are working and when they are not. I can see the formations, once again, (Lumps), as this form of bet selection goes into a winning state or winning condition. It's that condition that matters to me. It might be a fragmented cluster of wins that grind upward toward my goal. It could be a swarm all over my many faceted charts. It can also be a swarm of losing lumps too. I can see this. Math or magic does not cause these win or lose formations to occur. They don't prevent them either. Randomness allows them to exist. I like them because I use them when it is effective to use them. When a trend cluster is also a cluster of wins then I can see both clearly.
This is the holy grail of winning. It has been for ages. "Bet big when you are doing good, bet small when you aren't." Trying to find a magical rule or a secret formula is just wishful thinking. People want the easy fix. They want a secret rule. So Turbo gives you what you want only it's dangling like a carrot on a string hung from a stick in front of you. He thinks he has discovered another bet selection trick. When will that guy ever learn? Or more important. When will you ever learn?