steeeve 2 rounds no more than 125 spins.

EF-bet with mort shows in spins 11-40; 30 spins on average 15 of the remaining 37 non-hit come, so the other 15 are repeats.
So if you watch the trot you only need 1 win, re-set, you're not playing thousands or millions of spins.
How you program lets call it a watched random bet, what parameters would you code

oh yeah i forgot meaningless short data  got it

here is the sheet i used for the 124 spins, unlike wiggy i dont use spin positions,

Reverse engineer that

Trot?? Its in your head. Do proper testing.

Ask anyone with real experience. You are talking useless short term data. You'd do just as good or bad with random bet selection.

Need proof? Just test your bet selection accuracy over more spins. Or is more spins not needed.... because like you'll never play that many spins? Yes more data is bad.

all this should be very old news to everyone. Unfortimately its not.

And caleb may be a c**t but I agree with almost everything he says. Fact is not a matter of opinion.

what suits your boat

Sorry, guys, but I'm about to burst a few bubbles. Most guys including Turbo are dragging around a trailer-load of myths, delusions, and outright fabrications about females, roulette, casino etc. We think we're experts. We think we know everything. Unfortunately, we're wrong. Time to get the facts straight.

cant wait to see your play.........can you show us your fantastic results like turbo did.......actual play........or just all say

QuoteWe think we know everything. Unfortunately, we're wrong

Quote from: TurboGenius on Mar 13, 09:52 PM 2018
I'm done wasting my time with you.
Enjoy your nonsense.

Remember folks -
"If you win consistently, it's rigged.
If you lose - then you played a fair game and lost like you should.
Roulette computers work magic and Wobbling wheels will make you rich too."

Why do I bother wasting my time on these places. I have better things to do.

Good that you finally realised this - ie. the purpose of this thread. Better late than never. 

Maybe a forum will appear one day where people can learn from one another - instead of how they are now, where it's "him against me, me against him". What nonsense.
Someone shoot me a email when such a place appears, thanks.

No proof is good enough in online environment.

"him against me,  me against him" is motive driven, mostly by rc and broken wheels players.

About repeaters,  it can win flat bet. Thanks to you.

Quote from: cht on Mar 14, 08:49 PM 2018


"him against me,  me against him" is motive driven,

When u claim fully but only provide half evidence people must chase u for sure. They dont eat grass. Better u keep ur egg in ur sack. No claim no evidence.

Quote from: Madi on Mar 14, 09:50 PM 2018
When u claim fully but only provide half evidence people must chase u for sure. They dont eat grass. Better u keep ur egg in ur sack. No claim no evidence.

I use to get irked by dumbfarks who make claims, still do actually. And we all know those dumbfarks are active on this forum making claims as usual but who cares.

However, this no proper evidence is not applied on an even keel - that's the real obvious problem ofc driven by motive.

There's a difference between making a claim that's bragging about one's results with marketing/scamming intentions and sharing a potential - convince yourself, no one can provide proper enough evidence for you.

Harping no proper evidence is marketing/scamming in reverse.

So this cauldron of marketing/scamming mix comes in all shapes and form easily fooling the sucker - that's this forum anyway.

Sharing of ideas become the victim in between.

 error post

Quote from: 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.
[/quote
Thanks for this .No BS here

30; 0x's left is 1st profit on ?

course it was; larger group.