@ turbo

[ozon]

A little more time, I will keep my details for myself.
But I am very skeptical like You.
The more I play with this concept, I see one weakness of this whole concept, and I think that it may decide on longterm results. At least playing flatbet.
This will be visible over time. I still have some time to test manually
In general, the concept is optimal, because playing only 1 number, reduce the HE to a minimum.

I still think that a very large factor in the results of Turbo and Jekbh is the right MM, which I do not know.

[Steve]

Once you understand a particular concept, you'll understand money management has NO effect on whether you profit or lose in the long term. I've heard before of people losing with an approach, and thinking it was because they dont have the right money management or progression.

Basically "money management" is just different size bets on random spins. And if you dont win with flat bets first, then you arent changing the odds (accuracy of predictions), and the system is exactly as good as random bets.

For example, with the martingale you can bet 10,20,and 40 units. you think they're connected, but they're just 3 different bets on 3 different spins.

[The General]

Someone needs to tell the fools that playing the secret squirrel game and posting graphs of 100 spins isn't proof of concept.  Neither are their oxymorons.

[Steve]

They wont understand it because they either dont want to, arent particularly intelligent, or are still learning the basics. According to them, the whole professional and educated community is wrong. Tests on rigged games, and short term testing is their proof.

Apparently we have the problem.

[Firefox]

It is fun testing these systems to beat random games with rigged payouts, but they all lose in the end.

Theres quite an entertaining book,13 against the bank by Norman Leigh which advocates a reverse labourchere progression. It's a bit like the paroli but rather than having to win every time you just have to win most of your bets (ratio of 2 to 1) on an even chance over a period. Essentially after comitting a small stake line, you are then gambling with the casinos money when you win.

The general pattern is a steady series of small losses as your stake line is wiped out followed by spectacular wins when your even chance hits a good streak.

I've simulated this system and it can do quite well over a few thousand spins. That's what happened to Norman Leigh when he went to Nice. They hit a few lucky runs and got banned eventually as the Casino manager was infuriated they won big by betting small stakes to start and gambling  big with the casino money. If you'd read the book you'd think it was a magic system.

But usually by 10 to 20 thousand trials the house edge catches up. Your big wins cancel your many small losses but your stakes keep getting halved every time zero comes up which gnaws away at your lines. It's only 1.35% tax under French rules almost 4 times better odds than the US 00 wheel, but enough to bankrupt you eventually.

So if you have found your holy grail system, you need to test it not over 200 spins but 20,000 or 50,000. Then test it again, till you have 100  of those trials. That will give you a true indication. 200 spins is meaningless against odds of a few %. Anything can happen!

[The General]

I rather like the reverse Labby for fun.  But I've heard that Norman Leigh's book was fiction.

[Steve]

I rather like the reverse Labby for fun

Forward labia is even more fun

[Firefox]

I rather like the reverse Labby for fun.  But I've heard that Norman Leigh's book was fiction.

You could be right about that. I read it about 1990. It was certainly presented as fact and I took it as such then, but was pretty certain even without simulating it, the system couldn't win and he got lucky. It can generate large wins short term so that much is credible. Also a great read.

[nottophammer]

Eddy

7+ cycles of the 1 has to hit to go two, and so on.
Plenty of places to stop.
But why stop; when it don't lose.

Time to join the club General.

[Bigbroben]

You could be right about that. I read it about 1990. It was certainly presented as fact and I took it as such then, but was pretty certain even without simulating it, the system couldn't win and he got lucky. It can generate large wins short term so that much is credible. Also a great read.

Yes, fun reading.  It got me hooked!  Probably romanced a bit though
...

[Bigbroben]

Forward labia is even more fun

Which is..?

[nottophammer]

Had to laugh 1 pocket to0 many.




How does vaddi handle that?

[The General]

Eddy

7+ cycles of the 1 has to hit to go two, and so on.
Plenty of places to stop.
But why stop; when it don't lose.

Time to join the club General.

Notto,

The graphs above look terrible.  What are you smoking? 

[Bigbroben]

Forward labia is even more fun

Oh... I think I get it.  Steve...

[Steve]

(|)