@ turbo

[maestro]

experienced players, like are Steve, Caleb, Mr.J

,   says who...

[maestro]

once old friend told me >gambling is like a tatto once you get it you cannot get it out but you have to live with it but good thing about it is that tatto is personal means something for you so is way of play,you might not like mine or vice versa but i could not care less...so dont trash Turbo let him explain if he wants if not fair enough...

[jefra]

Maestro, I have nothing against Turbo, just opposite, I think he is good guy, but only one thing piss me off and it is that he insists that a system CANNOT lose!!  Every system can lose and will lose IF player does not have unlimited bankroll ;-)

[jefra]

Steve, I cannot comment about Ken, but from what I read I think that he plays still much smarter as many other players. He plays very few numbers and he is against all sort of progressions, so this is a good approach for system players ;-)

[denzie]

Ive never seen anything to suggest ken is an expert at anything other than blaming others for his life, backstabbing, trolling, petty behavior, blatant malicious lies, digging a deeper grave, and making a dickhead of himself. Im far from convinced his secret "method" is anything but talk. His experience with roulette is how to lose. Not how to win. His purpose on forums is to troll to make hinself feel superior and better about himself. If you dont see him for what he is, look closer. Maybe one day Ill show some conversations, if he wants. He seems to.

Agreed 100%   

[Steve]

Betting more or fewer numbers doesnt make a difference in the long term. Generally results are more predictable if you bet more numbers (in the short term).

There's a lot of talk about overcoming variance. But it still doesnt change anything. Variance is not being understood.

Basically the difference is a slow predictable drain with lots of bets and smaller profits on wins, OR a slow predictable drain with fewer bets but with rare big lucky wins. In the long term there's no difference at all. People are missing what's actually required to beat the game, and why.

I have no idea about Turbo except that I dont find his claims believable, and some of his statements are incorrect. BUT I have an open mind as always, and am listening. I believe he has good intentions, but I think ultimate he has made a mistake. If I'm wrong, I will have no problem admitting I was mistaken. I take pride in being able to swallow my pride and admit when I've made a mistake. But in this case its not at all about pride. If I'm wrong, I get to learn something perhaps I could use. If I'm right, then nothing changes for me.

[denzie]

Denzie, many systems can survive 10,000+ spins. Nevertheless if it works for tou, keep doing it. But dont be surprised if a bad night wipes out all wins and more. You might be one of the lucky ones who stops before the losing run. For some, that run is on day 1.

Steve I'm more than aware of that. Even 10000 is nothing. Been seeing 100000+ till it goes down .

Of course I'm gonna keep going as long it keeps winning. Would be stupid not to. And I know those horrible sessions are out there. You might get a few of those in a row. But I recover those sessions in 1 or max 2 sessions. And that's not to bad. Time will tell.

[TurboGenius]

People are missing what's actually required to beat the game, and why.

Repeaters don't change odds. Ive tested probably trillions of rng spins with automated software. Repeaters are normal statistical probability.

Repeaters actually do change the odds - as I said on the other forum (not sure if I can repeat that here with copy/paste) the charts show how you have a 1:38 chance of winning on any individual spin because there are 38 possible winning numbers (numbers that could win if bet on) and the payout is 35:1
When you play repeaters (the third show of any number for example) you no longer have 38 possible winning numbers - you have a small hand full of numbers that are the only ones that can win.
Since we know (as you've said) that repeaters will happen - we already know what numbers to play.
Perhaps that's one simple thing that people are missing ?
I kept saying - 38 numbers won't show in 38 spins, a single number won't repeat 38 times.
Therefore we no longer have 38 possible winning numbers to choose from. We end up with less possible winning numbers vs the house payout and gain the advantage.
I charted this in detail to show the reader how the math of the game changes.
"IF" there was a reliable chance that 38 numbers would show in 38 spins - this game would be impossible to beat, but that doesn't happen. This is random. Even random follows rules. Random is predictable.
That predictable outcome puts the game in the player's favor and not the house.
(If it were not random it would be impossible to win).
This is all what I've said over and over - perhaps it's not sinking in properly.
A aggressive progression is also key - Once the player has the game in their favor, it only makes sense to use a aggressive progression to increase bankroll and make up for those times when random throws that unfavorable cycle of spins at you.
So - you can't win unless you can predict outcomes better than 1:38 ? You can. You can predict outcomes at such a rate that you can't lose. (yes, I said that.)

[thelaw]

I kept saying - 38 numbers won't show in 38 spins, a single number won't repeat 38 times.

That's heavy......

[falkor2k15]

Let's say we have:
7 numbers = 1 appearance
30 number = 0 appearance

I still think is equal probability for any to appear next. If we are betting for a repeat then the 7 numbers are already well on their way to completing that event. So we can predict repeaters based on what stage they are at in terms of appearances, but that doesn't mean we can profit. It just means we are confirming the obvious: if something is "1 up" then it's closer to "2 up" than those that are still at 0 appearances.

The only advantage of repeaters seems to be that we can reduce the wide swings of variance?

[RouletteGhost]

Ok so In 37 spin cycles we most likely will have a repeater or several repeaters hit a total of 3 or more times

That's not in any way an aggressive progression

You are only betting a few numbers

Progression would be mild at best?

Even if you lost a 37 spin cycle you will win the next one

But the was I see numbers come in, every cycle has a threepeater at least

[Steve]

Turbo youre quite incorrect. Theres no law that ensures there won't be 38 numbers in 38 spins.  The law of a third is basic probability in that most of the time there will be repeats. But this doesn't help because you never know which will repeat. Your bet selection still has random odds.

The proof is test trillions of spins and you'll find 38 numbers in 38 spins does happen. And it's exactly as rare as any other combination of numbers in 38 spins. Thats including 0 spinning 38 times consecutively. Theres no point to argue it. My free software can do the testing and anyone can test.

[maestro]

38 numbers in 38 spins never happen...do zelions of test it will not get it..unless is rigged one

[maestro]

"IF" there was a reliable chance that 38 numbers would show in 38 spins - this game would be impossible to beat, but that doesn't happen

...i think this is wrong if roulette produce 38 uniques every 38 spin cycle then would be nice as you will know for sure that whatever hit s say in first dozen it will not hit again say..

[adamr123]

I agree with you that it could happen 38 in 38 spins, but probability not high. lets be honest anything could happen in 38 spins. What if you are playing sections of numbers same applies? bit higher probability? .... yes of course. what if the average is enough to overcome all sections hitting one after another? what if 3 wins of high probability overcomes the loss of one low progression and with either win or lose the next round begins in a few spins using new data. the odds of win are reset and in the event of a loss from previous result, the continuation of a loss event is stoped in it's tracts and the cycle begins again.