From all those years in roulette exploring , the best system of all that I have seen its T.G possible H/G.
It has everything in!
Maths,probability,MM. And also TG always make systems with reasons of why to win and not voodoo.
It is supposed that probability can t be taken as advantage in roulette ,but if we leave it out then nothing else remains.
Anyway my tweak is that when 1 line(I would be play it only on Line bets for 5 spins cycle and not straight nums bet because it needs less BR and less spins to record and less spins to overcome a bad fluctuation.) has finished it s 5 betting cycle without a win, then the next line that would be in the bet would be the line that will have the less hits but also the furthest back appearance.....
TG suggests that if 2 or more numbers(or lines in my case) has the same amount of hits , then pick 1 randomly to put in the bet....my tweak is to chose the one of the 2 or 3 that has the same amount of less hits BUT also the furthest back hit.
It is supposed that all bet selections are same....but IF I would play this system I would play it only with my tweak.
This is the link of the original system of TG.
link:://:.freewebs.com/turbogenius/possibleholygrail.htm (link:://:.freewebs.com/turbogenius/possibleholygrail.htm)
Take a good look at the 2 bet selections he did.......
In the 1st graph that he played it with random bet selection it wasn t good...but when he used the less hit numbers(sleepers) as a betting selection , the graph went High!
So is probability a weapon in winning roulette?......it s ur choice what to believe .....
If a programer could code this system and give it a go in a lot lot of spins it will be very good so see the results.
Great thread MOP, haven't seen it before. Do you know what happened to Turbogenius?
Hello
Could you give us an example, please? :smile:
Thanks amk.
Unfortunately I was trying to find where he is by sending him an email but he never replyed.
I hope he is well in his health and that he still fights to find a way to beat the game....it will be a big lose for the roulette exploring world if he abandoned everything.
I read his latest concept and I didn t liked it at all.....it was a nice concept but with a wrong way to apply it.
Jarabo everything u need is in the link I gave....its a very simple system.
The only "hole' of this system is that there will be some rare times (when we will face a really odd fluctuation) that even when all the lines will have hit , we can be in a negative balance(no new profit). From my personal testing almost 1 in 100 times that all the lines have won will not bring a new profit.
For this case I suggest the following(my 2nd tweak):
Look at the deference between the previous higher balance and bet accordingly....
e.g.. If all lines have won(hit) but we end up with -30 chips from the last higher balance , then do NOT start by betting the less hit line (and also furthest back hit) with just 1 chip....start the betting it will lets say 5 chips and continue from there....with this way the positive balance will come and it will not be a grind....
Now If 2 very odd and bad fluctuations will happen in a row....then don't play roulette anymore because this is sooooooo rare to happen that something else is behind it....like devil dosn t want you to win. LoL
Mr. Pockets
This is a very interesting concept and I thank you for bringing it to our attention. No Voodoo, huh? Well, OK! If you insist!
This very well could be a winner in the long term.
I agree with whomever said it would be slow. A robot would be perfect for this!!!
I have some ideas that need to mature and I don't want to pollute the thread.
I'm listening.......
Sam
Ok, this is a very interesting and promising idea.
Dont you think that in this case its better a cycle of 6 bets instead 5?
Thanks
thanks TCS.
When I say no voodoo I mean that we can justify the WHY we are betting "there" and WHY with so many chips etc(even if all are based on GF like sleepers)....and not like betting there because as u said the weather changed ;D
I would like to hear those thoughts of urs .... I respect you as You are a perfect understander of roulette and I guess that your comments will be correct.
So I am listening
No Jarabo ....because the 6 bet cycle if u win on the 6th there will be NO profit....u will just be even
And even if i would play it on straight nums as TG I would be for 37 bet cycle but for 35.
Its true!
Thanks for posting this wonderfull idea! :wink:
So you are saying this:
Bet a line for five spins at one unit. After five losses, add the furtherest back line and go up one unit. Repeat if you have not won in the next five spins.
And what do you do when you win?
Sam
Is it the 1st time that you read about this method? I don't think so.Its an old system and I guess you must have read about it before...
"""After five losses, add the furtherest back line and go up one unit"""
NO....after 5 losses you are adding the line with the less hits.....BUT if 2 pr 3 lines have the same amount of hits(appearances) then u will chose the one with the furtherest back hit......so u need to record both... the amount of times that the lines have been hit and the when they were hit! Its very easy and you can do it in no time even in the casino.....
when you will win some lines and u see that You are in a new profit...then You are starting again from the beginning by betting the line with the less appearances(hits).(sorry forgot to mention this RESTART tweak of mine.....TG suggests to play continuously no matter if you are in a new profit or not until all lines bets(or nums) have won....but there will be a lot of times that even if u still have some unhit lines u will be UP from a win on a line....so U MUST restart in order to make everything safer)
This is the first time I have read of this method.
I can see this calls for a tracker!!
Yes, I'm lazy, folks!
I'm thinking of the worksheet for "The Bone" as Bombus tracked lines.
This would be a fun way to play.
Thanks, Hip Pocket......
TwoCat
it s strange that u hadn t read it before...
keep in mind my 2-3 modifications couse they make the system a lot safer especially the last one with the resets after a new profit.
Let s hope a programmer will make it into a bot.
I don't want to start a fire here, but I never had much faith in TurboGenius so I did not read much of his stuff. I still have one of his systems on a hard copy. Had it worked like he said it did, I would be elated. In fact, he had so many winning systems I couldn't keep up.
Maybe that's why he's gone. He's living the high life! Truly, I hope so. VLS said he had not one, but two "Holy Grails".
His graphs always bothered me. They always seemed too good to be true. Maybe not...
So, Master, I've got your idea down pat.
I can see where a person would not get into too much financial trouble with this system. I'm sure someone will code this for Rx and we'll know how it shakes out.
A thought: Isn't part of the fun of this game not knowing the outcome? I mean, we sorta like to gamble don't we? If we absolutely knew of a winning method, would we even play it? Or would we "tweak" it?
I'm pretty sure I've got three winning systems under my belt and I'm still looking!! I think my hobby is arguing!!
Somebody start a fight!
Sam
Sam, problem with most of those "holy grails" that beat "gazillion" past spins is they can have draw-downs lasting thousands upon thousands of spins.
On the very comprised chart as seen on the computer, several thousand spins is seen just a "dip".
But in real life, trying to keep your spirit up betting 4,000 5,000 7,000+ continuous spins in the hole... is quite another story.
There are indeed good UNPLAYABLE methods. Feel free to ask Ken/Mr.J about this topic. As a B&M casino player he knows and has good insight on this.
Hello my old friend, Victor
You are so right. I remember seeing those tiny little dips in the graphs. In truth, they represented, say 200 spins, to be conservative. Those 200 spins would have destroyed your bankroll.
Sam
Quote from: VLS on Jun 16, 06:26 PM 2012
trying to keep your spirit up betting 4,000 5,000 7,000+ continuous spins in the hole...
Or more!
Not to mention the past gazillion spins beaten bear no guarantee as to beating the current gazillion batch.
In the end, there might be a time to
phase-out even
good, playable methods.
You can ask Ken about this one too!
TCS I really can t understand why you changed your mood.
If I had a winning system of course I would play it ...i don t like gambling.
Yes Vic this is one of the reasons that it s better to play it on lines and not on straight numbers because it will be 6 times faster to get out of the hole in a bad fluctuation....
This is one of the reasons why this system must be bot ed to see what could be the longest spin recovery and if its a long run winner......
I never said it can win....I just said to give it a go as it seems fairly good.
He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts... for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang (1844-1912)
LOL
i didn t know that TG was not loved by everyone.
I have read a lot of his posts and the man knows a lot about roulette maths and statistics.
The only I didn t like was his last approach.
Master
My mood has never changed...I don't think!
I have no ill will toward TG. Never spoke to him or e-mailed him. Read a lot of his stuff. Probably learned from him. After all these years, I still have one of his systems archived in my files.
I feel the G.U.T. is a winning method of play.
So why don't I just go away and play it? Hey, I could play it and my guitar at the same time!! It's slow, you know. Here's why. I like the interaction I get on these forums. I like my guitar forum. I like to talk to people, even Jl.
In the near future, I will begin playing the G.U.T. for real as I have tested it extensively. The idea works; not sure I can work it.
While I am logging numbers from Dublin, I will test your idea as well as two others that have been given to me privately.
TwoCat
u can love Turbogenious but the fact that all his stuff is losing is still a fact. I don't know him personally neither i have ever interacted with him but from people which did, i know that everything is posted by him is not a winner. If he has ever had a real winner it was not published. So don't be naive.
It's a shame that Turbo doesn't frequent the forums any more, I think he just tired of the endless bickering and attacks. Sound familiar? ;D
He was a very smart and creative guy, and it was largely his enthusiasm that got me interested in roulette. I can still vividly remember reading his posts at GG back in 2004 on the "50 Max" system he was working on. He had a way of creating suspense and excitement (a bit like our JL).
Anyway, a good example of how creative he was can be seen in his "predictor" system. Do a search at GG for it or read the attached. A couple of years ago I wrote a tracker for it, but results didn't seem to be as good as he claimed. Again, no surprise there.
I never said that he has posted a winning system iggiv...so I am not naive.
I just said that he is a nice guy with solid knowledge about roulette and the other things that Bayes said like creative etc.
OK i have never said anything against this guy, i just feel that all those methods are still within the same "losing frame", as others.
Quote from: Master_of_pockets on Jun 17, 07:15 AM 2012
I never said that he has posted a winning system iggiv...so I am not naive.
I just said that he is a nice guy with solid knowledge about roulette and the other things that Bayes said like creative etc.
Vile I never said that this is a possible H/G .... "Possible H/G" is the name that TG gave to this system.
If a system could be a winner in the long run(H/G) then in my opinion it would be a system that contains Maths,Probability,safe MM...and this one has it all.
With Voodoo there is no reason of why to win and that s why all systems based on it are tanking.
Anyway thank you guys...
What is left for this topic to be finished/locked is some programmer to make it into a bot and test fast a hell lot of spins...
The reason I said it must be played on LINES and not straight numbers is for the matter of facing shorter DOWNS in order to be playable in a real situation....this way also will make a smaller BR needed....
If we will see from testing that it can not recover and make always new profits(graph that is going UP) and if we will see that for ex. we have a DOWN for 500 or more spins to be in a new profit, then it s clearly a non playable system in a real casino....
I care only for a system that is playable in a real casino....no RNG and no online casinos.
TG original system didn t have the RESET option....
Meaning that even if there is a stage that he is in a new profit and he was betting 3 lines with 4-4-4 chips on them and the one of them won(and brought a new profit in the overall Br)), he was continuing betting 4-4 on the 2 lines that was left...then if the cycle of the 5 spins were over without a win he would bet 5-5-5 etc....so the bets were being very high without any reason , because instead of resetting all the bets and starting over with just 1 chip on one line(because we were already in a new profit) he was just continuing betting for ALL the lines(straight nums in his graph) until all lines would be hit.....
This very bad and creates BIG downs that can be avoided by just resetting.
If he had include in his testing graph the reset option then the graph would have smaller DOWNS and of course smaller UPs...but I care about smaller DOWNS and I don't care about bigger UPS,,,stability is the priority.
That's why the resetting option can make this system a lot more safe and steady and with a need of a smaller Br and maybe shorter downs(in order to be playable). The system will be a lot safer with this option and this is for sure..,...the matter is HOW much safer??? and this can be seen only with testing....
Now IF the other input of mine (when 2 or 3 lines has the same amount of hits , then we are choosing the one with the furthest back appearance and not picking one randomly as he suggests)makes any def ,then the system could be stronger....
I know that bet selections is a fallacy....i never forget this even for a sec....but from his graph it made a major point.
Programmers have programed a lot of non sense systems....let s hope that they will program this one too that is a serious system....
ok sorry for deleting the out of the topic posts but I see that there is some interest from some members and they also didn t want the topic to be ruined.
ophis will u be so kind to make the program?
"He was a very smart and creative guy... "
Okay, that's what you mean by "smart and creative". Got it.
This thread is no different... "math but not math", ie, just no math. (Where's the calculation of probable edge, and expected value?) "
Quote from: Bayes on Jun 17, 06:14 AM 2012
It's a shame that Turbo doesn't frequent the forums any more, I think he just tired of the endless bickering and attacks. Sound familiar? ;D
He was a very smart and creative guy, and it was largely his enthusiasm that got me interested in roulette. I can still vividly remember reading his posts at GG back in 2004 on the "50 Max" system he was working on. He had a way of creating suspense and excitement (a bit like our JL).
Anyway, a good example of how creative he was can be seen in his "predictor" system. Do a search at GG for it or read the attached. A couple of years ago I wrote a tracker for it, but results didn't seem to be as good as he claimed. Again, no surprise there.
OK, I've read the PDF. His first number that he calls a predictor comes at spin 14. Can anyone tell me why it is a predictor? Does the score reach a certain number, like 50 or something?
He says numbers can go up in score by as much as seven. Why less than seven except for zero. Every number falls into the exact same categories.
I read these things till I could scream hunting for why someone did what they did.
Sam
tried to post an example and the formatting was all screwed up.
2
11
9
1
6
25
32
8
10
1
30
6
2
1 (took 14 spins to get a prediction) - after this the table is always qualified.
The above is from the pdf. Anyone got any idea why/how the 1 is qualified?
Any score for a number can go up 7 points from any spin based on these locations.
This again is from the PDF.
I have looked at this too long. I find no instance where a "score" would not go up seven points. When he uses the phrase "can go", I understand that to mean it also "cannot go" up seven points.
This, to me, is an ambiguous statement. Anyone else see this? If I'm wrong, please point out where.
Bayes,
Any chance of getting your tracker if you still have it? Or what is the name if it's in downloads?
I'm off to the casino in hopes of getting a seat.
TwoCats
Can anyone explain this bet with lines? I'm a bit confused ----thats pretty normal for me
well...I cant believe there are people around here who havnt eat, drank and digested everything TurboGenius has written. All that is suggested in here has been talked about in his blog. He wrote all this 7 years ago.
Even Iggiv hasnt ever read TG.
link:://:.freewebs.com/turbogenius/ (link:://:.freewebs.com/turbogenius/)
read this and look at everything in detail.
I did realise eventually why I was so taken in by him. its simple.
its a blog. Not a forum. No one ever questioned what he said.
That aside...he is God....in our times. ©2006 TurboGenius (well, not really)
Where is he now?
Well I have heard speculation he found the HG and sits sipping long island Iced tea on his own Island.
Looking at his compulsive obsession and bets he placed (4 numbers, $25 on each) he is a bankrupt making speeches in GA meetings.
Turner
Seems old TG was a bit of a buddhist too...this is very minimalistic with zero dualism.
its under "low Budget System"
link:://:.freewebs.com/turbogenius/lowbudgetsystem.htm (link:://:.freewebs.com/turbogenius/lowbudgetsystem.htm)
you will never loose a penny.
I can t understand why u are attacking to TG.
He is a genuine guy whi is exploring roulette with maths-probability.
Quote from: Master_of_pockets on Jun 17, 04:41 PM 2012
I can t understand why You are attacking to TG.
He is a genuine guy whi is exploring roulette with maths-probability.
You would have to be English to understand that I am in awe of TG. Its a sarcastic humour.
TG 456 streets?? awesome!!! its a work of art.
TG is why I started to take interest in Roulette
But he was so obsessive that he disappeared for 2 reasons...1. he's dead... or 2. he's bankrupt and in remission. you choose.
JL is the modern day 'poor man's version' of TG.
24/7 posting and still enough time to make their vast personal fortune! ;D
@M_O_P..... I tried your variant and it holds up well. I remember testing the original version years ago and it tanked several times for big losses. I like your idea! It deserves further studying.
Quote from: turnerfeck on Jun 17, 04:33 PM 2012
Seems old TG was a bit of a buddhist too...this is very minimalistic with zero dualism.
its under "low Budget System"
link:://:.freewebs.com/turbogenius/lowbudgetsystem.htm (link:://:.freewebs.com/turbogenius/lowbudgetsystem.htm)
you will never lose a penny.
MOP...this was a joke. You missed it. "low budget system" you click the link, its blank. get it?
hmmmm
Quote from: TwoCatSam on Jun 17, 01:52 PM 2012
Bayes,
Any chance of getting your tracker if you still have it? Or what is the name if it's in downloads?
Sam, I'll have a root through my backup files on CD. Can't find it at the moment on my hard drive.
In the meantime, this thread (link:://:.gamblersglen.com/cgi-bin/teemz/teemz.cgi?board=_master&action=opentopic&topic=935&forum=Roulette_Archive_2007)on GG might help, or not... ^-^
As far as I'm aware, this was the last system ever posted by Turbo. I don't think it's on his web site.
Quote from: GARNabby on Jun 17, 11:41 AM 2012
"He was a very smart and creative guy... "
Okay, that's what you mean by "smart and creative". Got it.
This thread is no different... "math but not math", ie, just no math. (Where's the calculation of probable edge, and expected value?) "
Expected value is always -2.7%, so what's the point of calculating it?
It's not "what I mean" by smart and creative. I'm talking about a person, not a definition. But you knew that.
Quote from: turnerfeck on Jun 17, 04:23 PM 2012
Even Iggiv hasn't ever read TG.
link:://:.freewebs.com/turbogenius/ (link:://:.freewebs.com/turbogenius/)
Turner
Why did u assume that? i read his stuff years ago. i also discussed it with some people from the forum. No winning method was published by him.
Quote from: VLS on Jun 16, 06:26 PM 2012
But in real life, trying to keep your spirit up betting 4,000 5,000 7,000+ continuous spins in the hole... is quite another story.
This is what "separates the men from the boys", ie, how to handle a loss. But with a real method played in real time.
Long before such a bad/good period could, with any real likelihood, occur. I mean, things don't just go along nicely for a while, then completely downhill. Has to be a period in between at which things go along nicely as things turn down hill. Where you can do something about it before "all h*ll breaks lose".
Quote from: VLS on Jun 16, 06:26 PM 2012
There are indeed good UNPLAYABLE methods. Feel free to ask Ken/Mr.J about this topic.
No, there aren't. Or, i suspect that you would have at least made the attempt at listing one, yourself, a charter roulette-commentator on the internet.
Baccarat's John May wrote that if you wait long enough, a few hundred shoes, then sometimes the card-count indicates a tie-bet. Wait longer, maybe then also on either the player, or banker, bets. Of course, no one's going to wait that long, keep a perfect count of the cards even on paper, and bet $50,000 on a tie to make, on average, if you live long enough, $19 an hour. Which casino wouldn't push back such a bet even on the first attempt? I asked this of May, himself, but he knew of no one who had actually tried it. (In fact, i pointed out some other flaws in his work, his interent-site, etc, only to be called a schizophrenic. The usual response from "authoritative sounding" persons easily "found out".)
_____________________________________________________
On a related tone, (in his signature line,) Flukey writes, "One of the good things about forums like these is you just never know when another piece might come along for that big puzzle. The downside is that there will always be a few pieces missing and you have to learn to live with that."
Well, "you can't get there from here". No one ever has, and no one ever will.
Ironically what will happen again, as did by every single one of the gambling innovations, is that this sort of stuff become "Gambling-101" fodder for the bulk of some real expert's, one with real accreditations, modestly-priced paperback. To which the get-rich-quick crowds here, and there, will again flock, only to find out that, again, some real work and money are required to "make money" (, no surprise at the latter part of this, i hope)... and, again, back to this sort of "drawing board". You guys are nothing, if not "exhaustive".
I've already mentioned the value of learning to not contradict yourself. The other important thing to look for in a theory, etc, is convergence (of what isn't a contradiction, of what isn't "changing with the weather"). Ie, the thing should become easier to explain, develop, and work with in the field. Another reason that, if things like "roulette computers" really worked, dear Steve would have long ago come out with cheaper, simpler, but better verions of the original one. Like, for example, big, expensive tube-laden radios became smaller, cheap solid-state ones. Basically, the same technology in a tidier form. (Where would we be if radios depended on an such an ever-changing electromagnetic theory? Certainly, not a requirement for encryption at the Tower of Babel!)
Anyway, which better clinical example of the basic gambler's manifest psychology of delusion then, as
Quote from: John Gold on January 26, 2012, 04:13:32 AM (link:://rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=19714.msg143884#msg143884)
"Hello little bread gobblers.
Well time for me to say adios,
Just let me say, I would even pi$$ on my own mother’s shoes before telling her the H-G.
So you sad sorry sacks of sh*t had no hope of getting it either through relay or whatever. ROFLMAO.
But me and a ‘few’ others had a good laugh at your expense the last week. Especially all the threads opening up on different forums about Parrondo’s Paradox. Guys! You are too clueless to work any of it out and like SPIKE used to say: Never, and I repeat NEVER wise up a chump.
So long
.(link:://rouletteforum.cc/Smileys/default/shocked.gif) "
Thanks in advance, for the comedic relief, Mr. Gold. You clever devil, you! ;) Hey, even that nonsense of May's was made into a successful(?) paperback.
Quote from: iggiv on Jun 17, 06:03 PM 2012
Why did u assume that? i read his stuff years ago. i also discussed it with some people from the forum. No winning method was published by him.
Sorry OK....
you said "i do know Turbo's stuff. Nothing works there as far as I know" i mis-quoted you.
I know from someone who used to know Turbo personally that he said himself that all his published stuff is losing. He even mentioned this somewhere himself. If this guy has ever had winning stuff he has never published it, u can be sure about it.
Anyway all his approach is wrong in my book. All the same patterns as always. And analyzing thousands and thousands spins in a row. And roulette destroys this stuff easily. It is like going with a knife against a machine gun nest. U may dodge the bullets for some time, but finally they will get u.
"""And roulette destroys this stuff easily. It is like going with a knife against a machine gun nest. U may dodge the bullets for some time, but finally they will get u. """"
true...and it happens with ANY system and not just TG systems.
VLS posted : """There are indeed good UNPLAYABLE methods. Feel free to ask Ken/Mr.J about this topic.""""
And GARNabby replayed : """No, there aren't. Or, i suspect that you would have at least made the attempt at listing one, yourself, a charter roulette-commentator on the internet."""
I agree with GARNabby.
Quote from: iggiv on Jun 17, 09:01 PM 2012
I know from someone who used to know Turbo personally that he said himself that all his published stuff is losing. He even mentioned this somewhere himself. If this guy has ever had winning stuff he has never published it, You can be sure about it.
Anyway all his approach is wrong in my book. All the same patterns as always. And analyzing thousands and thousands spins in a row. And roulette destroys this stuff easily. It is like going with a knife against a machine gun nest. U may dodge the bullets for some time, but finally they will get u.
Iggiv,
So what do you suggest then....specifically? Which approach is best?. What you say is interesting but very broad and general.
Turner
Sorry man, but i can't teach u win in roulette. It takes a lot and i am not claiming that i win all the time. But at least i learned not to lose too much. I gave u some ideas, now u may use them or u may not.
Before you hit the can with this method----try it! You might be surprised.
Sam
Did u test it Sam with my modifications?
No, I did not test it; I won money with it.
And, yes, your modifications are the cat's meow!
See my other thread.
Thanks...........
Sam
I am happy for u mate.
Where is this other thread?
Did u play it online? On lines?
On this forum.......
Two systems that really work.......something like that.......
All is explained there.
Got to walk hounds....
Sam
Where is a programmer when you need him?
And the real question is : If a programmer will code a system and run it in X spins and see that it s a winner , will he ever post the results? ;D
Quote from: GARNabby on Jun 17, 06:21 PM 2012
No, there aren't. Or, i suspect that you would have at least made the attempt at listing one, yourself, a charter roulette-commentator on the internet.
Hello dear Garnabby, I'm not going to be part of the "holy wars" on forums.
I trust your point. If you say there aren't, then there aren't. We know in no game of chance there should better nor worse methods, so math is on your side.
To be frank, when I posted that text I was thinking about those "Random has limits" sort of methods, which need massive waiting, but can actually put yourself to play events with a 99.99...% probability, yet without guarantees of course; just probability, since everybody knows there aren't guarantees in any casino game.
Best regards.
@MOP why do you think that programmer will wait here on forum just for you to code any of yours holy moly so called systems or ideas...he /she will spend his time coding for you in return of what...silly smile over the internet i think these times are over.. :thumbsup:
back in the old days when members were hungry for beating this game , the programmers were coding any $hit within some minutes.....
Now they are lazy.
Maestro u were always a pain in the a$$ in all forums....so now go and tune ur music ur orchestra :P
Superman will code a bot for you, just ask him for a quote and pay him.
Sh*t, ask him for a quote and I'll pay him.
3
3
3
3
6
5 (e.o.c) (I will bet the 4)
1 4x1 = -1.
6 4x1 = -2.
2 4x1 = -3.
6 4x1 = -4.
3 4x1 = -5.
3 4x1 = -6. (e.o.c) (I will play 4 and 1)
2 4x2+1x2 = -10.
6 4x2+1x2 = -14.
2 4x2+1x2 = -18.
5 4x2+1x2 = -22.
4 4x2+1x2 = -14.
5 1x2 = -16. (e.o.c) (I will play 4 and 1)
1 4x3+1x3 = -4.
6 4x3 = -7.
1 4x3 = -10.
4 4x3 = +5. (end of game)
Here is a quick sample game for anyone not sure.
(e.o.c) stands for 'end of cycle' Remember you will be playing in cycles of 6 spins should you decide to play M_O_P's line variant.
I certainly think playing it this way improves things a bit. The original variant from T.G. could get you into all sorts of trouble because what tended to happen is that you found yourself playing the same sleepers on every cycle. The bets started to escalate pretty quick when those numbers just refused to appear. All you ended up doing was digging yourself into a bigger hole. The same thing happened above where I continued to play the 4+1 on the fourth cycle but I don't think it will stay like that for as long as the T.G. variant could and should cycle through the lines quicker.
Quote from: Master_of_pockets on Jun 18, 09:24 PM 2012
And the real question is : If a programmer will code a system and run it in X spins and see that it s a winner , will he ever post the results? ;D
Exactly. I certainly wouldn't. ;D
The only solution is to learn how to code yourself.
I don't think it's that programmers have become lazy. For one thing, there are relatively few of them on the forums, and those who have done a lot of coding in the past (like superman) have come to realize that no systems of the kind you see here (relatively simple ones) are going to win in the long run. I've coded at least 100 in my time and not one came out ahead over a large number of spins, or if it did, the drawdowns and/or profits made wouldn't make it worthwhile playing.
Eventually, I gave up coding systems and now only code to find statistics or write trackers. I don't think the dream will ever die, but there comes a point when you decide there are better things to do. Coding complex systems is hard work, it's tough to "keep the faith" when you've seen the 100th chart go south. ^-^
It's at that point that you start asking for payment to do the coding. In the beginning, when people contact you privately and ask that you code their system, you don't want to ask for money because you think that the claims made by the creator are genuine ("it's a sure winner!"), so you actually think yourself lucky that they've contacted you! You don't mind doing the work for nothing because if it really is a winner, it will have been worth the effort.
Maybe the system creator really does believe the system is a winner because he's won with it, but it always turns out to have been a lucky streak.
donate 100E
(moneybookers/paypal - PM for account)
and i will code it (singles/lines)
into MST (or make bot for BV)
...
.
Quote from: flukey luke on Jun 19, 06:23 AM 2012
3
3
3
3
6
5 (e.o.c) (I will bet the 4)
1 4x1 = -1.
6 4x1 = -2.
2 4x1 = -3.
6 4x1 = -4.
3 4x1 = -5.
3 4x1 = -6. (e.o.c) (I will play 4 and 1)
2 4x2+1x2 = -10.
6 4x2+1x2 = -14.
2 4x2+1x2 = -18.
5 4x2+1x2 = -22.
4 4x2+1x2 = -14.
5 1x2 = -16. (e.o.c) (I will play 4 and 1)
1 4x3+1x3 = -4.
6 4x3 = -7.
1 4x3 = -10.
4 4x3 = +5. (end of game)
The original variant from T.G. could get you into all sorts of trouble because what tended to happen is that you found yourself playing the same sleepers on every cycle.
i think in each cycle you should add one number/line.
if the furthest sleeper still didint hit then take one before him and so on
this way u won't play the same sleepers.
in this example one more line should be added to 4+1 in 3rd cycle
...and u do not stop on +
u continue to end cycle.
"All 3 numbers win, we reset to 1 number at 1 unit."
"Each time you have a win, while playing only 1 number -a new cycle of spins begins."
"If your playing more than 1 number, all of them have to win."
You have to wait until all numbers/lines in cycle have hit.
only then reset progression and numbers/lines count to bet....
according to TG.
""""""""All 3 numbers win, we reset to 1 number at 1 unit."
"Each time you have a win, while playing only 1 number -a new cycle of spins begins."
"If your playing more than 1 number, all of them have to win."
You have to wait until all numbers/lines in cycle have hit.
only then reset progression and numbers/lines count to bet....
according to TG.\""""""""""""""
Yes and some of those rules I changed them.....because its safer with my way.
I would NEVER continue to bet 5-5-5 chips on 3 or more lines if I was in a new profit,.....no reason and very big risk.
Flukey I already posted that the cycle on the lines is 5 spins and not 6....because in the 6th You are even.
I am testing now the system(with my modification) on streets because silly RX doesn't have statistics on the natural lines.
I ll post the result on 18.000 spins.
Quote from: Master_of_pockets on Jun 19, 07:48 AM 2012
""""""""All 3 numbers win, we reset to 1 number at 1 unit."
"Each time you have a win, while playing only 1 number -a new cycle of spins begins."
"If your playing more than 1 number, all of them have to win."
You have to wait until all numbers/lines in cycle have hit.
only then reset progression and numbers/lines count to bet....
according to TG.\""""""""""""""
Yes and some of those rules I changed them.....because its safer with my way.
don't see any of those changed rules mentioned in your first post.
but i see it now in one of your replays:
link:://rouletteforum.cc/main-roulette-board/4/t-g-possible-method-system-with-a-little-tweak/9664/msg82436#msg82436 (link:://rouletteforum.cc/main-roulette-board/4/t-g-possible-method-system-with-a-little-tweak/9664/msg82436#msg82436)
Read my 1st posts....I have changes 3 things in the system.......
Especially the reset I have mentioned it at least 3 times.....
I forgot to mention 1 more modification that I made....
If we are betting 2or 3 or more lines and 1 of them win....if the one that won is the one that has the less aperances from the other ones then we are taking out the one with the most aperances and we are leaving in the one with the less......This is also important for the matter of statistics....maybe its a fallacy...we will see....
Quote from: Master_of_pockets on Jun 19, 07:59 AM 2012
I forgot to mention 1 more modification that I made....
If we are betting 2or 3 or more lines and 1 of them win....if the one that won is the one that has the less aperances from the other ones then we are taking out the one with the most aperances and we are leaving in the one with the less......This is also important for the matter of statistics....maybe its a fallacy...we will see....
in other words.. u removing the one that had the most hits no matter which one had actually hit?
yes. thanks for the better and shorter explanation ophis
Master
Sticking with your original idea in post one of this thread.................
1. When looking for a new line, you always go for the least hits over furtherst back? I had a situation yesterday where the least hits had just hit three spins ago but the furtherest back was about twelve spins ago. You'd go with least hits as a first choice?
2 You have three lines up betting three units and you are on number two in your progression. You win. Do you remove the winning line and drop the bet one unit?
Do you finish out your progression for three, four add five? (no new high)
I may have played a little aggressively yesterday.
Thanks.
I do not like the new added tweaks. The original idea you first posted is the one.
Sam
I tested 1751 spins......the system did recovered after a BIGGGGGGGGGGG down after a LOTTTTTTTT of spins but it s cpnsider unplayable in real conditions even if i would had applyed it on the lines.
Here is the graph . I will personaly won t bother with this system any more.
(//)
Well, that shook me a bit..............
I will play the system. For real money.
Maybe too many tweaks. The original idea seem viable.
Sam
The prob wasn t the tweaks my friend....the tweaks are making it even safer than the original...
The prob was that 2 Streets were sleeping way too much...
Every system have a weakness were the -2.7 is killing it....this one has the sleeping sectors as a weakness.
I suggest you to keep the lucky earnings and stop playing it anymore
Anyway, nice try and good work Master_of_pockets ;)
Very well. I'll take your advice.
Thanks.
This Topic was a healthy topic.
Healthy topic= Post system-testing system-in the end the system didn t work-close topic.And go for the next system.
or Post system-testing system-in the end the system is a winner-close topic and all go and get rich ;D
Unhealthy topic=Post system-no testing-never proof if works or not-abandon topic.
What this and any other topic needs is more feedback from the other members in testing and or tweaking.
After all matrixes we had some lines n streets :D Maybe some flat betting on inside now?
In my opinion only way....
Quote from: Robeenhuut on Jun 19, 11:24 AM 2012
After all matrixes we had some lines n streets :D
LoL. Variety is the spice of life.
Quote from: flukey luke on Jun 19, 11:27 AM 2012
LoL. Variety is the spice of life.
I think u were about 2 post something but i guess we scared u ;D
Deep Pockets
Why are you so quick to abandon this idea?
Who did the test for which you posted the graph?
Seems to me this is a workable idea. I don't really see how it can go as wrong as your graph shows. Are you sure the program is right?
I will not give up on this method just yet. It is too much like the one I posted today: Penny Lane's System. I have worked with that for years and know what it will do over time. I actually think your/TG's idea is better.
I'll do some math and some deep thinking and see if I can reach some conclusion.
Ever have a G.U.T. feeling? My gut tells me Turbo was finally onto something and you have improved it.
I'm going to try to improve it more. Might open my own thread.
Sam
The test were made by me. And I did it manually on RX...so no mistakes in any program.
2 of the sleeping Streets were sleeping wayyyyyyyyyyy to much and this is why this happened.The bets were keep raising and the streets weren t hitting.
If you think u can improve it more , I will be glad to read ur new Thread as I also like this system.
This system may become better with the Penthouse progression that GLC mentioned.
:thumbsup:
well said. Agree.
Quote from: VLS on Jun 16, 06:26 PM 2012
Sam, problem with most of those "holy grails" that beat "gazillion" past spins is they can have draw-downs lasting thousands upon thousands of spins.
On the very comprised chart as seen on the computer, several thousand spins is seen just a "dip".
But in real life, trying to keep your spirit up betting 4,000 5,000 7,000+ continuous spins in the hole... is quite another story.
There are indeed good UNPLAYABLE methods. Feel free to ask Ken/Mr.J about this topic. As a B&M casino player he knows and has good insight on this.