@ turbo

[Steve]

Turbo, does your principle apply to rng spins, and other games? Or just roulette?

[Drazen]

Turbo and co, what you're not understanding is there is no sequence or short term bias like you specified. Its fallacy.

How can you be sure? Test billions or trillions of spins and see. If you don't know better, you might think such a large test is a joke.  Is more data and being more sure a joke?

All that matters is the odds on the next spin. Repeaters don't change it.

Let's not argue.  Let's do some proper testing, ok?

I would be really interested to know what would you accept as a good enough testing in this case?

1. For TG, Pri or anyone else who claims to have non physics HG to show you a graph where is their bet tested on 100 million or billion spins? Of course we know such graph can be manipulated without knowing what is actually done, right?

2. Or to give you publicly or in private full method in detailed steps so you can test it for yourself?

If you would vote for option 2 you might stumble onto doubt of actual chance of getting that option. I am sensing that option could be subject to some strict principles of discretion. That is only what it seems to me by following Pri-s and TG-s posts for some time. I cant think of any good reason for that personally as to be honest I dont see problem in sharing Holy just for the fact to convince otherwise one obstinate physics beatable roulette methods seller.


Cheers

[denzie]

I would be really interested to know what would you accept as a good enough testing in this case?

1. For TG, Pri or anyone else who claims to have non physics HG to show you a graph where is their bet tested on 100 million or billion spins? Of course we know such graph can be manipulated without knowing what is actually done, right?

2. Or to give you publicly or in private full method in detailed steps so you can test it for yourself?

If you would vote for option 2 you might stumble onto doubt of actual chance of getting that option. I am sensing that option could be subject to some strict principles of discretion. That is only what it seems to me by following Pri-s and TG-s posts for some time. I cant think of any good reason for that personally as to be honest I dont see problem in sharing Holy just for the fact to convince otherwise one obstinate physics beatable roulette methods seller.


Cheers

TG is wise enough to keep it for himself. As he should. As we all should if we got it. We all know the casino's would make new rules to get the advantage back....as they did in the past already. It's just good common sense. 

[Bettingking]

Yeah exactly Denzie now please share your HG 

[Drazen]

TG is wise enough to keep it for himself. As he should. As we all should if we got it. We all know the casino's would make new rules to get the advantage back....as they did in the past already. It's just good common sense.

Oh thank you for bringing a bit of common sense here Denzie. It seems I forgot about it for a bit

Let see what Steve says. I just hope he wont ask Pri any graphs of trillions of tested spins as she is well known for tampering with results 

Maybe we can soften TG to eventually reveal everything then   

[Steve]

All i need is one concept to test, and i already have that. And the statements around it are inaccurate. My explanations of why are not being understood.

Im just waiting for turbo to respond to my questions, then can propose testing. I think i already know the answers based on previous posts but i want to be sure.

[ignatus]

don't we ever learn? TG says he uses a "heavy progression" We all know how that will end ?? I should know...   

[Steve]

just for the fact to convince otherwise one obstinate physics beatable roulette methods seller.

Here we go again. Im just trying to protect my system selling business and cant stand to see the hg exist, right?

Or how about turbo started this by posing questions for anyone to answer, and Im answering.

Im a player before seller of anything and if turbo has something better than what I have, then Id like to use it. I give my best methods free then players pay me part of winnings. Dont assume my focus is only what you see.

As for all this, it is perhaps an unpopular fact that so far Turbos statements are inaccurate. Ive explained why already, but its not being understood. So once turbo answers my wuestions, I can propose some testing to see if I actually know what Im talking about, or Turbo has something thats not clasdic fallacy.

Lets put aside the snide comments and let proper testing prevail, agreed?

Im interested in the truth, whatever it may be. I am not bound to what i think i know. I open to any change in my understanding. But when im told 1+1=400 im going to keep an open mind, but still carefully investigate the claim with a proper approach.

[Drazen]

Here we go again. Im just trying to protect my system selling business and cant stand to see the hg exist, right

Its not just about seeing a HG here. We have already seen it as far as I can judge. It is also about of having it at the same time

Because you can always claim that any test or proof here can not be valid unless you confirmed it too, right? So every scenario ends here. And of course, that makes perfect sense.

And am not sure why such method for wouldnt show in your catalog for example. It would be best seller comparing to any device one must hide or better to say not to alarm casino of its use.

Cheers

[wiggy]

Here are some charts I made a few years ago when I was looking at a kind of similar approach.
What I wanted to find out was how many numbers performed under expectation, how many matched the expectation and how many came above expectation in cycles of 37 spins assuming you are a playing a single 0 wheel.

So as an example in the first chart. After the first cycle of 37 spins.....16 numbers performed below average. 12 numbers matched expectation and 9 numbers hit above expectation. Maybe it will give some more food for thought in this discussion.

[jefra]

 Turbo's concept is not something new what has not been revealed in the past, are different variants, some better, some worse.  BUT it is obvious that Turbo does something different. Maybe is a catch/benefit in small details.

[TurboGenius]

Good work wiggy

[Steve]

Turbo please see my questions

[denzie]

don't we ever learn? TG says he uses a "heavy progression" We all know how that will end ?? I should know...   

You really should know after all these years. Yet you still doing the same over and over and over and....... 

[Priyanka]

Lets put aside the snide comments and let proper testing prevail, agreed?

Steve - I have taken an attempt to code this simply in an excel. Be warned, this might not be the exact way Turbo might be playing, but I have not seen this method fail over multiple iterations in this excel sheet. For all you know my excel sheet formula might be wrong (well we have had this before number of times), but at least this is a direct answer to your question. Anyone can fill their own set of numbers or use F9 to generate different sets of random numbers every time.