@ turbo

[TurboGenius]

That's called a cop-out. Its easy for you to fall back on that, without considering the source of spins or game rules.

For the record - the anti-system people use this often, isn't there even a book somewhere with a ton of spins recorded from "live wheels", etc. etc.
Yet you'll correctly say that these spins, in that order, will never happen again.
Take 200 spins from your live wheel on your site - those 200 spins will never appear again in that order - so any method that does beat them isn't really validated because those are "past spins" and "won't appear that way again",, etc. That's actually true - so why does something that beats those "never happening again past spins" validated ?
Also, it's a terrible approach to work a system to win when the spins are from live wheels but combined together in 'who knows what' fashion.
Let's say you have wheel 1 and there is a run of 30 reds in a row which is rare of course - but now you take another wheel 2 that had a run of 25 reds in a row and you splice them together for your "simulator" - as if 55 reds in a row could ever possibly happen.
When you combine "random" with another source of "random", sadly you won't get random anymore, you've influenced the listing and it's not random.
This is just one example of why combining tables and live spins and splicing them together will never give accurate results for testing - but it's done anyway and people fail.
RNG however can produce random constantly - there's no "the dealer changed here" or "This is from tables 1 through 10 combined however I felt like combining them.
Even a crap RNG that is seeded randomly will give very good results for testing a method.
You won't get the same listing twice, etc etc.
But anyway - I still have the big reply to type up when I'm not suffering as much (lol).
Maybe it will shed some light on things for you.
I know it seems like "going nowhere" or "going in circles" but I think the readers benefit from the information both sides put out so they can make their own choices to
"give up, it's hopeless" or "keep trying because there are ways that work"

[TurboGenius]

Where have you won with 30,000 spins, using real betting limits, and genuinely random/realistic spin results?

That's a very good question but it's a trap.
You would need to define your own opinion of what the betting limits should be, what the source of the "random"?/"realistic"? should be - because every place I play I dominate and win. None of those places are going to qualify though I know for your definitions.
One place will be unrealistic, another place might be 'fixed', etc etc.
Hell, my own live casino play results could even be argued as validation because "not enough spins" or "could have been a bias wheel".
It's nice to play the game when you won't let your opponent have a single way to prove something because you can always put up another wall and say it's a stalemate.
(I could post the math - and then it's over.. and you would instantly agree with me). But this could be more interesting without having to go that specific in the open.

[Steve]

the anti-system people use this often

I'm not anti-system. I'm anti-anti-logic. You cant ever make 35 greater than 37.

Yet you'll correctly say that these spins, in that order, will never happen again.

Given enough spins, it would. It just a matter of time. What happens on large scales also happens on small scales. You can test the theories more easily with a wheel that had just 5 numbers.

Take 200 spins from your live wheel on your site - those 200 spins will never appear again in that order - so any method that does beat them isn't really validated because those are "past spins" and "won't appear that way again",, etc. That's actually true - so why does something that beats those "never happening again past spins" validated ?

You cant bet against a pattern you think wont ever happen because you still aren't making 35 greater than 37.

Also, it's a terrible approach to work a system to win when the spins are from live wheels but combined together in 'who knows what' fashion.

You said your system works thanks to spins being random. So you are saying you cant change the odds and thats why your system wins. It's backwards. Now you're saying if there were spins that may not be random, it would be worse.

as if 55 reds in a row could ever possibly happen

Given enough spins, of course it would happen. You also keep saying random has limits. Actually no, it does not have limits. Even bago had to show you simulations where your limits were exceeded, and he's not too bright. Simple the greater the amount of spins, the greater the amount of possibilities. It just keeps going and going forever. But you recite obscure theoretical math that has no sense in the real world, like saying 1 / 0 = a really big number.

When you combine "random" with another source of "random", sadly you won't get random anymore, you've influenced the listing and it's not random.

Do you know what random means? It means random. It means ZERO known predictability. If you have zero in the equation, the result will be zero. 0 x 0 = 0 x 3 = 0, and so on. You are saying 0 x 0 = something. It's wrong. You say its not random. If it were not random anymore, it would be predictable, and then you could change the odds. But you have it backwards saying random is good. But random and random is bad. Seriously.

This is just one example of why combining tables and live spins and splicing them together will never give accurate results for testing - but it's done anyway and people fail.

Ok so now you are blaming MPR's mixed bag of spins on your realistic results, which are a loss? Because random and random means predictable, which is why you cant beat those spins. Again, seriously.

RNG however can produce random constantly - there's no "the dealer changed here" or "This is from tables 1 through 10 combined however I felt like combining them.

Ok so again you're saying random is good. Random means changing the odds are impossible, which is 35 always being less than 37, which means you lose.

Even a crap RNG that is seeded randomly will give very good results for testing a method.

Sure, that's because crap RNG is quite predictable. Not random. That's why we call it "crap RNG".

That's a very good question but it's a trap.

How's it a trap? It's a simple question asking where you have done what you claim to do, using a realistically fair game? You said it, not me. So I asked. Its not a trap.

because every place I play I dominate and win

Unless of course we mix random with random, because then it would be predictable and not random, and unbeatable - which explains your loss on MPR, right?

(I could post the math - and then it's over.. and you would instantly agree with me)

I doubt it. I dont think I could ever agree with logic like random is random, unless you mix random with random to make it not random, in which case it's unpredictable and cant be beaten.

Again this is not my opinion. This is what you are saying. What I believe is based on what is in front of me. And what's in front of me is a bunch of contradictory, and backwards nonsense, mixed in with short term testing on rigged games.

Turbo, if I truly believed you have what you claim, I would say that. But there are holes all over it and any reasonable mind would come to the same conclusions.

[Steve]

Again its not that I dont have an open mind, because I do very much so. If you simply said you used intuition to guess numbers, I would find it more credible because then you at least have a chance of increasing your odds to be better than 1 in 35. What you are saying you're doing is wrong on many levels. Really what you are saying is not much different from saying 1 + 1 = 82, and you use the math to make it = 82.

[sentinel3]

Of course you can. It more depends on factors such as the amount of spins you play. If you run simulations with testing software, even with a losing system, you can see some tests show a profit after even 20,000+ spins. I played for a year with a losing system, and was profiting - until the very end. There are also many players who have been playing for many years, and have profited so far.

A good example of what happens in real casinos is at link:://:.rouletteplayers.org/leaderboard/
It shows data like bankroll, and amount of spins played, but most importantly win rate. This is the ratio between wins and losses. About 0.973 is expected because of the house edge. If you tally up all the winnings and all the losses of the players, you get 975659848/1002385765 = 0.973 as expected.

This means on average, the players combined have lost, and the casino has profited.

But still we have people with really bad luck (very low win rate). These people are convinced their system doesn't work. And we have players with very good luck (very high win rate). These people think their system is the HG. Are they right? No. All that's happening is typical variance. Some players win, some players lose.

When the spins and game are realistic, the results are usually as expected:

The columns are  BANKROLL       PLAYED SPINS    AMOUNT BET     AMOUNT LOST     WIN RATE



And



I recall now you told me you had one account for messing around, and one you were trying to do well on. So what happened??

Observe the wheel design, the ball used, the dominant diamonds, and all the other typical signs that the wheel is likely to give more predictable spins than others. Professional play all starts with wheel selection. Denzie, I'm not going to give a full course right here. Like I already explained, there are free methods I already offer on my website.

No, it is simply how things work. Again it's not uncommon for players to win over $50k in one session. It more depends on the table limits. The most any of my players have won at an online casino (in one session) is something like 70k euros, and they were paid. But I have other online players that won just $500 or so and had accounts restricted, presumably because the player's activity before betting, and style of play, raised red flags.

Online casinos operate a bit differently because they can usually get away with more than a real casino would (depending on jurisdiction). Most online casinos can refuse payout for any reason they want - even if they just make up a reason. They know you wont take them to court and that even if you did, there's not much chance you'll win.

It isnt so easy for real casinos to make up excuses to refuse payout. There is video evidence that can support you. Generally in real casinos, if you win big, there will be a delay for payout as the surveillance staff check for anything suspicious in recordings. An organized team can easily avoid the attention if they know what to do. But I'm not going to discuss how we avoid detection here except to say one simply technique is splitting chips between players/people to avoid reporting thresholds.

Now for the important part: if there was a system that did not appear to be anything like advantage play, and the player won big, the casino would have no reason to suspect the big winnings were due to anything but luck. Compare roulette computers where you can only win with late bets, so you must disguise your bets with intentionally losing bets - which limits winnings. So your winnings are more limited. Now compare to something like a typical system with progression - and with such a system, it doesn't look suspicious at all. So the player can win much more without drawing any attention.

Putting it into context, an organized roulette computer team can win $5,000 - $10,000 in a typical small stakes casino usually without suspicion (much more is possible in higher stakes environments, without drawing too much attention). But if a player won twice this amount with typical system betting approaches, the casino would not get suspicious even if they won much more. And it would be much easier to win into the millions with the HG because you could play anywhere, online or real casinos, new or old wheels, bouncy balls or predictable balls -- there would be no significant limitations. So my point is if Turbo really had the HG, he could very easily be earning tens of millions in a short time. It would be very easy to avoid detection provided he kept each session below the reporting threshold, which is not hard to do. But instead what we get is turbo wasting weeks with fun money, instead of real money. If he could do it with real money on the same scale as fun money, he would be doing it. It's the same for everyone else who has the "HG".

The math is simple: payouts are lower than the odds. You cant use that to win. You cant change the payouts. You need to change the odds.

No casino "allows" electronics, because they easily beat casinos. That's my preferred method. I like to make it easy. And although it's "not allowed", it is still legal in about half of casinos. That's my choice, it doesn't affect anyone except the poor billionaire casino owners. I already explained there are ways to win without computers. I'll respond to turbo in next post.

So you are saying Steve, if I have a system that needs 7 to 1 to break even. And over several years it delivers around 11 to 1. Never even dips under 7 to 1 once over a 100 game sample. That is just pure luck. Okay then.

Back to panicking online casinos Steve. My argument remains. If these people are so smug in the knowledge that no mechanical system. Can beat them over the longrun. I.E they know house edge, table limits and mr variance. Will always show them a profit.

Why do they panic when someone wins a mere 500 units. Can you explain that?

Surely they would be saying to themselves enjoy your luck. In the end we are getting it all back then some?

ESPECIALLY if someone is running a system using a marty like me right? Nothing suspicious there. Nothing to worry about there. Its supposed to lose in the long run isnt it???

But panic they do. And panic they will. I have 10 online accounts Steve. Im going to see which one messes up their panties first and stops me. And at what point. Will it be 500 euro 5000 50000. Lets see.

But be sure of this Steve. At some point over the next 5 years. They will ALL want me out of there. Then I will have to carry on the old fashioned way. Put on my best suit twice a week. And go and make my money in walk in casinos.

[Steve]

So you are saying Steve, if I have a system that needs 7 to 1 to break even. And over several years it delivers around 11 to 1. Never even dips under 7 to 1 once over a 100 game sample. That is just pure luck. Okay then.

I dont know enough about your system to comment. Except to say its really not hard to win over 5,000 or even 20,000 spins from LUCK. It happens, just as we expect statistically. Keep in mind I won for a whole year with constantly play - around 5,000 spins. And I would let NOBODY tell me it was just from luck. Because I was arrogant and pigheaded about it, as we tend to be when young.

Back to panicking online casinos Steve. My argument remains. If these people are so smug in the knowledge that no mechanical system. Can beat them over the longrun. I.E they know house edge, table limits and mr variance. Will always show them a profit.

Well basically that's right. But there are more parts to it. For example, they know lucky aggressive progression can make them lose big. And some nline casinos even forbid progression betting in their terms of service. This isnt because you beat them long term. It's because they dont want anyone to have the chance of a huge run of luck.

Why do they panic when someone wins a mere 500 units. Can you explain that?

As I explained already. Its not a panic in those cases. Its more an observation of the account activity and style of play consistent with professional play. So the casino stops the player before they do any serious damage.

Surely they would be saying to themselves enjoy your luck. In the end we are getting it all back then some?

On the surface, they say "great going, well done". Then they give you a free room to stay longer, so you play more, and lose the money back to the casino.

ESPECIALLY if someone is running a system using a marty like me right? Nothing suspicious there. Nothing to worry about there. Its supposed to lose in the long run isnt it???

Yes that's correct. Although you are probabaly trying to be sarcastic, you're actually correct. Do you really think they are scared of the martingale? I've only seen an online casino worried about aggressive progression, but never a real casino. Still though, if there are super large bets, the floor manager is going to want to watch closely. Casinos can lose too. But the long term edge is in their favor.

But be sure of this Steve. At some point over the next 5 years. They will ALL want me out of there. Then I will have to carry on the old fashioned way. Put on my best suit twice a week. And go and make my money in walk in casinos.

Ok, I hope you do that.

[sentinel3]

I dont know enough about your system to comment. Except to say its really not hard to win over 5,000 or even 20,000 spins from LUCK. It happens, just as we expect statistically. Keep in mind I won for a whole year with constantly play - around 5,000 spins. And I would let NOBODY tell me it was just from luck. Because I was arrogant and pigheaded about it, as we tend to be when young.

Well basically that's right. But there are more parts to it. For example, they know lucky aggressive progression can make them lose big. And some nline casinos even forbid progression betting in their terms of service. This isnt because you beat them long term. It's because they dont want anyone to have the chance of a huge run of luck.

As I explained already. Its not a panic in those cases. Its more an observation of the account activity and style of play consistent with professional play. So the casino stops the player before they do any serious damage.

On the surface, they say "great going, well done". Then they give you a free room to stay longer, so you play more, and lose the money back to the casino.

Yes that's correct. Although you are probabaly trying to be sarcastic, you're actually correct. Do you really think they are scared of the martingale? I've only seen an online casino worried about aggressive progression, but never a real casino. Still though, if there are super large bets, the floor manager is going to want to watch closely. Casinos can lose too. But the long term edge is in their favor.

Ok, I hope you do that.

So if i am taking just a 100 euro a week off one online casino each. I shouldnt be setting any alarm bells off then Steve.

[TurboGenius]

I doubt it. I dont think I could ever agree with logic like random is random, unless you mix random with random to make it not random, in which case it's unpredictable and cant be beaten.

That was pretty funny - but it wasn't what I said.
If I pick a listing where a very rare event happened - say 30 reds in a row
and another listing where a very rare even happened - say 20 reds in a row
and stick them together, it's no longer random. I made the list and it will now show
50 reds in a row because of me - not because it EVER could happen.
So someone's testing fails against a pieced together group of spins from table 1,2,3
when in reality they would never face that NON random condition.
You're only argument is that that "Well, 50 in a row could happen !".
C'mon. Anything can happen. 10,000 reds in a row could happen - so you''re willing
to say that unless a method can beat a run of 10,000 reds in a row it's a loser - because
10,000 reds in a row "could" happen. ? That's nonsense.
Just because you take random list A and combine it however you want with random list B - that does not make it random now, I'm sorry. Once a person interferes with the results it's not random.
Hell, by definition roulette itself in a casino isn't random (it's "random enough")
You can't have a mechanical wheel and a ball, and a human all interact and change variables - it's no longer random. But that's ok - Math remains.
My method beats the math - on RNG or at a table.

Ok so again you're saying random is good. Random means changing the odds are impossible, which is 35 always being less than 37, which means you lose.

Yes, 35 is always less than 37 and it doesn't mean I lose.
It means that the equation you use to figure the house edge is right - the equation I use to win is also right. If you can accept and figure out how we are BOTH right - you've got it.

[sentinel3]

That was pretty funny - but it wasn't what I said.
If I pick a listing where a very rare event happened - say 30 reds in a row
and another listing where a very rare even happened - say 20 reds in a row
and stick them together, it's no longer random. I made the list and it will now show
50 reds in a row because of me - not because it EVER could happen.
So someone's testing fails against a pieced together group of spins from table 1,2,3
when in reality they would never face that NON random condition.
You're only argument is that that "Well, 50 in a row could happen !".
C'mon. Anything can happen. 10,000 reds in a row could happen - so you''re willing
to say that unless a method can beat a run of 10,000 reds in a row it's a loser - because
10,000 reds in a row "could" happen. ? That's nonsense.
Just because you take random list A and combine it however you want with random list B - that does not make it random now, I'm sorry. Once a person interferes with the results it's not random.
Hell, by definition roulette itself in a casino isn't random (it's "random enough")
You can't have a mechanical wheel and a ball, and a human all interact and change variables - it's no longer random. But that's ok - Math remains.
My method beats the math - on RNG or at a table.

Yes, 35 is always less than 37 and it doesn't mean I lose.
It means that the equation you use to figure the house edge is right - the equation I use to win is also right. If you can accept and figure out how we are BOTH right - you've got it.

Turbo I believe what you are saying. The only thing i agree with Steve on. Is if your system is that good why dont you make say a quarter mill. And silence the detractors. I like Steve cannot understand why you are wasting your time with a virtual HG for play money?

[Steve]

So if i am taking just a 100 euro a week off one online casino each. I shouldnt be setting any alarm bells off then Steve.

Correct, you are unlikely to raise red flags. But at some point, they are going to look at your account history and start to wonder, then watch you more closely. And the manager may eventually decide to do something about you. The bottom line is no casino will tolerate a consistent winner. One way or another, they'll deal with you. The trick is to avoid suspicion in the first place. Its easy enough in real casinos. But with online casinos you need a different approach - usually with multiple accounts. Some of my players have paid others to create ID verified accounts to play in. But its still messy and real caisnos are overall better.

If I pick a listing where a very rare event happened - say 30 reds in a row and another listing where a very rare even happened - say 20 reds in a row and stick them together, it's no longer random.

It is if both sequences were random. Keep in mind the outcome of red or black is determined by countless seemingly random variables such as air pressure, air flow depending on rotor speed, rotor release speed, ball track grit, sweat from the dealer's fingers, random release point, and so on. There are so many variables involved. And ultimately if one set of spins is random, and the other set is also random, they are indistinguishable. They are "as good as random". Implying otherwise is saying you can tell the difference, which I doubt you could.

You're only argument is that that "Well, 50 in a row could happen !".C'mon. Anything can happen. 10,000 reds in a row could happen - so you''re willing to say that unless a method can beat a run of 10,000 reds in a row it's a loser - because 10,000 reds in a row "could" happen. ? That's nonsense.

You are missing that any sequence of red/black is just as likely as any other sequence. Not only that, one sequence will happen just as often as any other sequence. If you don't believe me, just TEST extensively. There is no doubt about it. It's not a grey area. It's well tested and documented.

The classic fallacy you're talking about is like a gambler who sees a run of reds all in a row. I mean c'mon, there's no way that run is going to continue. So let's bet BLACK. And guess what, red spins again. But there's no way it would happen again, right? Oops, it did. It's classic fallacy.

You need to check any sequence of reds/blacks imaginable. Check it in billions of RNG spins. Then check how many times red or black spins NEXT. You'll find that despite what you think should happen, red and black will spin next an equal amount of times. The more tests you do, the closer they'll be matched.

Just because you take random list A and combine it however you want with random list B - that does not make it random now, I'm sorry.

If you take one string of shit, and join it with another string of shit, you end up with a longer string of shit. Look at it any way you want, but its still just shit, aka random.

Once a person interferes with the results it's not random.

There are countless variables interfering with the outcome, 100% of the time. That's what makes it... "random".

You can't have a mechanical wheel and a ball, and a human all interact and change variables - it's no longer random

Now we're getting to other areas. Nothing is ever truly random. Its all just cause and effect. With real wheels, spins are often predictable enough to beat the house edge because the variables arent random enough. Thats what makes roulette beatable even with predictions before ball release.

My method beats the math - on RNG or at a table.

That's another contradiction. If it's random, then the math means the accuracy can never be greater than 1 in 35, so you will gradually lose your bankroll.

Yes, 35 is always less than 37 and it doesn't mean I lose.

It does because no matter what you bet, and the bet size, you are still going to be paid unfairly. It's like earning $1000 from a job, then the tax man taks 30%, and you expecting to have $1000 left over. It just doesnt happen in the real world.

It means that the equation you use to figure the house edge is right - the equation I use to win is also right. If you can accept and figure out how we are BOTH right - you've got it.

Looks more like you've made a mistake in your calculations, which mirrors your contradictions. Really I'd like to be wrong, but I cant just turn away from blatantly obvious facts. I do not accept many thins you've said: for example like saying random is not random anymore if someone interferes. Random is random. There's more but now we're getting back into circles.

[Steve]

The only thing i agree with Steve on. Is if your system is that good why dont you make say a quarter mill

The "only" thing? Then you are missing quite a bit, and believing a load of backwards claims.

[sentinel3]

Correct, you are unlikely to raise red flags. But at some point, they are going to look at your account history and start to wonder, then watch you more closely. And the manager may eventually decide to do something about you. The bottom line is no casino will tolerate a consistent winner. One way or another, they'll deal with you. The trick is to avoid suspicion in the first place. Its easy enough in real casinos. But with online casinos you need a different approach - usually with multiple accounts. Some of my players have paid others to create ID verified accounts to play in. But its still messy and real caisnos are overall better.

It is if both sequences were random. Keep in mind the outcome of red or black is determined by countless seemingly random variables such as air pressure, air flow depending on rotor speed, rotor release speed, ball track grit, sweat from the dealer's fingers, random release point, and so on. There are so many variables involved. And ultimately if one set of spins is random, and the other set is also random, they are indistinguishable. They are "as good as random". Implying otherwise is saying you can tell the difference, which I doubt you could.

You are missing that any sequence of red/black is just as likely as any other sequence. Not only that, one sequence will happen just as often as any other sequence. If you don't believe me, just TEST extensively. There is no doubt about it. It's not a grey area. It's well tested and documented.

The classic fallacy you're talking about is like a gambler who sees a run of reds all in a row. I mean c'mon, there's no way that run is going to continue. So let's bet BLACK. And guess what, red spins again. But there's no way it would happen again, right? Oops, it did. It's classic fallacy.

You need to check any sequence of reds/blacks imaginable. Check it in billions of RNG spins. Then check how many times red or black spins NEXT. You'll find that despite what you think should happen, red and black will spin next an equal amount of times. The more tests you do, the closer they'll be matched.

If you take one string of shit, and join it with another string of shit, you end up with a longer string of shit. Look at it any way you want, but its still just shit, aka random.

There are countless variables interfering with the outcome, 100% of the time. That's what makes it... "random".

Now we're getting to other areas. Nothing is ever truly random. Its all just cause and effect. With real wheels, spins are often predictable enough to beat the house edge because the variables arent random enough. Thats what makes roulette beatable even with predictions before ball release.

That's another contradiction. If it's random, then the math means the accuracy can never be greater than 1 in 35, so you will gradually lose your bankroll.

It does because no matter what you bet, and the bet size, you are still going to be paid unfairly. It's like earning $1000 from a job, then the tax man taks 30%, and you expecting to have $1000 left over. It just doesnt happen in the real world.

Looks more like you've made a mistake in your calculations, which mirrors your contradictions. Really I'd like to be wrong, but I cant just turn away from blatantly obvious facts. I do not accept many thins you've said: for example like saying random is not random anymore if someone interferes. Random is random. There's more but now we're getting back into circles.

Okay thanks for that advice Steve. If I could even get 5k off each account over an 18 month period. Before they say this guy is taking too much off of us. I will be happy. Once ive exhausted that avenue. I will have to mingle with the masses in real casinos.

I will let you know Steve with proof as each account show me the door. So at least you will know in the time they tolerated me. I was certainly winning.

[sentinel3]

The "only" thing? Then you are missing quite a bit, and believing a load of backwards claims.

Steve I have to keep an open mind. If im a consistent winner. I have to accept there are other consistent winners out there.

Regarding your system that worked for a year then went belly up. What was it. And why did it suddenly stop working?. This I am curious about. As a solid system should work for as long as its played.

[Tinsoldiers]

You are a big shot Steve.    turbogenius and gang is spending hours and hours together to prove to you that their system is worthy and a long time winner.  A lot of effort to convince one man.

Seriously lot of time can be saved if you tell them how do you want them to prove something works. If your answer is playing MPR for millions of spins, then someone need to sit in front of that MPR game 3 years 24x7 to do it which is not going to happen.

So what’s the solution?

And what is this with roulette simulator and ranking? Why is it so important, after all it’s a simulator to practice your skills.  I am also going to give it a serious go to get to top 10 in 10 days like I gave a go at Pattern breaker before talking anything about it.

[TurboGenius]

If you take one string of shit, and join it with another string of shit, you end up with a longer string of shit. Look at it any way you want, but its still just shit, aka random.

link:s://s17.postimg.org/ojo5082hb/5a71653d.jpg


So you're ok with saying (and being wrong) that someone could take that run of 20 that happened once, and the string of 19 that happened once - combine them into one list and make it 39 reds in a row ? So this entire chart would look insane - there would be that nice steady and predictable chart (based on math) and then at the top spot a LONG 39 in a row session that happened once.
It doesn't happen, it's nonsense to say that it could.
Do you see the numbers on the left ? See the connection they have with one another ? It's because random follows rules (actual random). It has limits. Every chart of data shows this. But your content to call anything a failure so long as you can run off 40 billion spins and then say "HA ! 39 in a row ! I told you it can happen !". It's nonsense and you know it.
My play is based on repeaters, repeaters happen. It's part of random.
That means random is predictable for reasons you still refuse to understand
because the very term repeater isn't relevant to someone who bases everything on one spin.
"It's probably probability"
Random has limits - look at the pretty charts.
Random is predictable - look at the numbers in any chart and how they relate to one another
Math beats a math game - look at my results.
A number can't show twice if it hasn't shown once, a number can't show three times unless it's shown twice. - common sense.
I can't lose a single unit betting on a number that doesn't appear.
There's no contradictions here at all, just lack of understanding.