@ turbo

[Madi]

I thing TG is right. It needs big bankroll

[rouletteKEY]

Bankroll is a key element in any gambling scenario and is seldom given enough emphasis

The casino's overwhelming cash edge means they can basically wait you out financially since you can never really get back in the game quickly if you escalate too fast because of table limits.

The dilemma then becomes the spread on where you start the progression vs those table limits and starting at a point that allows a reasonable amount of safety generally has you guessing whether its worth it because if you have $50-100,000 as a gambling bank you really don't want to start at $2 or nickel bets because the wins just aren't worth it based on your bank size

It's always something

[Madi]

I think $5000 should be ok. Even less would
Be fine. $2 starting bet too big. $1 starting bet is fine even some has 25c or less , start with that. No betselection is superior. In my view we need some kind of progression to overcome. Its not easy to beat a random game.come on in last 200 years people made different progression . Why? May be they fail or win . But the only answer of "when" is the progression.

[Madi]

Thats not a normally used progression. I never seen that in roulette forum.

[maestro]

@ turbo are there more explanations to come and some math formulas or that was it...thx

[probasah]

Here is the link to excel. I have tested 10 million spins and it seems to hold good. Hmm!! Warned about the excel formula though, it might have been tampered

link:s://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8V2R2PUfxa7U1NNV05mMldKNGc/view?usp=sharing

Hy Pryianka

The Excel Tracker has a mistake in the AO column (wrong chip count when winning).
Attached the corrected version.
The progresion fails.

Regards,
Alex

[Pogo]

Long time lurker here and joined to reply to this thread with what I got out of what turbogenius has been saying in this thread and in many threads on GF.

I will say up front, I am quite likely wrong, it would not be the first time.

In a 37(European Roulette)/38 (American Roulette) spin cycle, there are going to be 3-5 numbers hit more than twice.

Using this he has, through testing worked out a positive progression for betting on numbers that have hit twice to win when they hit for the third or fourth time.  This really is not that hard to work out and if this is what he is doing, I can see why he is winning all the time.

Think about it.

Like I stated earlier I am quite possibly wrong, but in my, so far, limited testing it works.

[probasah]

Long time lurker here and joined to reply to this thread with what I got out of what turbogenius has been saying in this thread and in many threads on GF.

I will say up front, I am quite likely wrong, it would not be the first time.

In a 37(European Roulette)/38 (American Roulette) spin cycle, there are going to be 3-5 numbers hit more than twice.

Using this he has, through testing worked out a positive progression for betting on numbers that have hit twice to win when they hit for the third or fourth time.  This really is not that hard to work out and if this is what he is doing, I can see why he is winning all the time.

Think about it.

Like I stated earlier I am quite possibly wrong, but in my, so far, limited testing it works.

Hi pogo

The problem is, what is the entry point and the progression.
Solve that and you have yourself a Holy Grail.

Regards,
Alex

[probasah]

To all RF users, a friendly recommendation to read this thread.

Alex:)

[falkor2k15]

Hi pogo

The problem is, what is the entry point and the progression.
Solve that and you have yourself a Holy Grail.

Regards,
Alex

Before considering a progression it would need to win flat-betting first, right? And a positive progression requires a win to progress, otherwise you would have to wait for the next set of 37 spins? I envisage a lot of waiting...

[Madi]

U can tell everyone how to play, where is the entry point and the progression.

[Pogo]

Hi pogo

The problem is, what is the entry point and the progression.
Solve that and you have yourself a Holy Grail.

Regards,
Alex

U can tell everyone how to play, where is the entry point and the progression.

Reading both of those replies, it is very obvious you have either not read all of TurboGenius's posts, or if you have, you have not understood them.  The entry point is the easy part, the progression takes more working out and lots of trial and error, but it is basic math. 
Some of you have said he has posted riddles, I refute that, he has been very clear, it is just that not many have really read his posts properly.

Read his notes again, they are spread out over both this forum and GF and go back 2 years. He hasn't handed the solution completely to anyone on a platter and neither will I, but I understand why he got frustrated.  Besides, I could very well be wrong.

The way I play it does not win each cycle 100% of the time, but it comes pretty close.

A cryptic hint if you like:  Unless you get an absolutely perfect cycle, you will always lose before you win. Look at his graphs, they show that.

[probasah]

Reading both of those replies, it is very obvious you have either not read all of TurboGenius's posts, or if you have, you have not understood them.  The entry point is the easy part, the progression takes more working out and lots of trial and error, but it is basic math. 
Some of you have said he has posted riddles, I refute that, he has been very clear, it is just that not many have really read his posts properly.

Read his notes again, they are spread out over both this forum and GF and go back 2 years. He hasn't handed the solution completely to anyone on a platter and neither will I, but I understand why he got frustrated.  Besides, I could very well be wrong.

The way I play it does not win each cycle 100% of the time, but it comes pretty close.

A cryptic hint if you like:  Unless you get an absolutely perfect cycle, you will always lose before you win. Look at his graphs, they show that.

Hi pogo,

The instructions are indeed very clear. Repeaters do happen.  They cluster. The problem is the Money Management part. TurboGenius never told us that small part (1%) that makes all the difference between losing and winning. I`m not blaming him. It`s his choice.
Waiting for a lose can be a solution, how about waiting for a series of loses and then a win and bet after that?

Regards,
Alex

[falkor2k15]

Hi pogo,

The instructions are indeed very clear. Repeaters do happen.  They cluster. The problem is the Money Management part. TurboGenius never told us that small part (1%) that makes all the difference between losing and winning. I`m not blaming him. It`s his choice.
Waiting for a lose can be a solution, how about waiting for a series of loses and then a win and bet after that?

Regards,
Alex

Repeats don't cluster per se. It all depends how many numbers are @ 1 appearance will determine the probability for a repeat. The more numbers in sight of a repeat the more chance of clustering potential. 5 double streets will cluster more than a single double street, but the payout is less. So that part bears no significance.

Again, money management is a red herring. Win flat-betting first.

Waiting for a virtual win is another losing technique base around variance avoidance that doesn't work.

Repeats can help - but I think the above only serves to steer everyone astray from what really matters.

I suggest ignoring all vague talk of clusters, MM (positive or negative!), variance avoidance, and instead concentrate specifically on this more valid statement:
"In a 37(European Roulette)/38 (American Roulette) spin cycle, there are going to be 3-5 numbers hit more than twice."

[Steve]

Turbo has made claims that are fundamentally false. Things that his system is based on. I said it all before. I'd like to believe otherwise but his approach doesn't work.

There's simple proof. Do "hot numbers" have different odds of winning again anytime soon? No. Its super old gamblers fallacy. So the odds don't change. Payouts don't change. Nothing changes. What's left is just a typical progression. Its black and white. Its simple math. Simple logic.

Yet people will test short term data and think short term wins are proof. You'll get the same long term results if you bet on cold numbers.