The Ineptness of Turbo and others

[Steve]

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.

[luckyfella]

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.

Just want you to know that.

[Joe]

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!' 

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.

[Steve]

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.

[Tinsoldiers]

But 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.

[Ka2]

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...

[Ka2]

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...

[Steve]

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.

[Ka2]

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...

[falkor2k15]

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?

[Steve]

Progression without betting limits would win even with random bets. Turbos system was bet selection with random accuracy and progression.

[luckyfella]

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 ?

[Steve]

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.

[Ka2]

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

[Ka2]

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...