@ turbo

[Steve]

Its not just me that understands these fundamental facts. Its the entire casino community. Mathematicians. Statisticians. Anyone that understands basic math.

It is insanity to have such clear proof in front of your eyes and ignore it. Why ignore? Because of low volume testing? You think that's more reliable that far more extensive testing?

Show me one piece of tangible evidence that hot numbers change the odds. And if odds aren't changed, show me how progression is any different to a bunch of random bets of different sizes.

[Pogo]

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

Read these posts:

RouletteGhost reply 49 (he gets most of it)
rouletteKEY reply 102 (he probably has it by now)
Turner reply 209 (knows what must be done, but hasn't worked on it enough)
TurboGenieus reply 218 (tells it all on a platter)

If you don't have it after reading them you wont get it at all.

[falkor2k15]

I agree with Steve:
-Very Hot
-Hot
-Medium
-Cold
-Freezing

Repeat potential: Hot numbers don't have more chance than Freezing numbers!

Again, only useful statement so far:
"In a 37(European Roulette)/38 (American Roulette) spin cycle, there are going to be 3-5 numbers hit more than twice."

To add to this we have one from Reddwarf:

If I wait for a N repeats of a number and start betting on all numbers that repeated N times, the higher N, the higher the less unique numbers I need to bet on.

[Pogo]

Its not just me that understands these fundamental facts. Its the entire casino community. Mathematicians. Statisticians. Anyone that understands basic math.

It is insanity to have such clear proof in front of your eyes and ignore it. Why ignore? Because of low volume testing? You think that's more reliable that far more extensive testing?

Show me one piece of tangible evidence that hot numbers change the odds. And if odds aren't changed, show me how progression is any different to a bunch of random bets of different sizes.

I am not sure where TurboGenius was leading with the odds bit Steve, but this works and I am sure many know it does and do not say a word.

[probasah]

Win flat-betting first.

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

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

Hi Falkor

I absolutely agree with all your above points. I am a flat bet believer myself. One needs to have a solid bet selection and then think of money management.
The entry point is also important. Read my suggestion above: Bet entry: Wait for a Serie of loses and then a Win and enter there.

Regards,
Alex

[Pogo]

Hi Falkor

I absolutely agree with all your above points. I am a flat bet believer myself. One needs to have a solid bet selection and then think of money management.
The entry point is also important. Read my suggestion above: Bet entry: Wait for a Serie of loses and then a Win and enter there.

Regards,
Alex

Oh man, you are way off the mark.  Stop thinking so basic, read what has been posted. I totally get TurboGenius's frustration.

[probasah]

Oh man, you are way off the mark.  Stop thinking so basic, read what has been posted. I totally get TurboGenius's frustration.

Yes, pogo, you are right. I a wrong.

Attached 18 series of 5000 spins to confirm it.

Alex

[nottophammer]

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."

Have you seen the light or something Mr F.
What does reference point 25 in GUT show

[falkor2k15]

Hi Falkor

I absolutely agree with all your above points. I am a flat bet believer myself. One needs to have a solid bet selection and then think of money management.
The entry point is also important. Read my suggestion above: Bet entry: Wait for a Serie of loses and then a Win and enter there.

Regards,
Alex

You are assuming two things:
1) There's more chance for a cluster of 2+ wins
2) That cluster pays out more in terms of risk/reward

So let's say we are betting double dozens (66%):
1) I wait for 1 virtual win and then I bet on the double dozens to win again
2) I may win more, but every time I lose, I lose TWICE as much compared to when I win

And when that virtual win does come, the potential for another win depends on how many numbers we are betting each time.

So unfortunately, waiting for a virtual win is a misnomer. 

[Pogo]

Yes, pogo, you are right. I a wrong.

Attached 18 series of 5000 spins to confirm it.

Alex

OK you play your way, but from what you have stated so far it is not how TurboGenius does, if your way wins, well done.

Have you seen the light or something Mr F.

He is getting closer and he has quoted the most relevant part towards getting it.

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

Anyone who does not understand after reading the posts I outlined and the above quote, never will.

[falkor2k15]

Read these posts:

RouletteGhost reply 49 (he gets most of it)
rouletteKEY reply 102 (he probably has it by now)
Turner reply 209 (knows what must be done, but hasn't worked on it enough)
TurboGenieus reply 218 (tells it all on a platter)

If you don't have it after reading them you wont get it at all.

37 spins cycles you will have numbers that hit 3 to 4 times

So when a number hits twice start betting it

OK good. This reflects the one valid statement so far.

Betting repeaters isnt good enough especially if you are betting a coverage over cycles

Somehow, you have to make the numbers that are hitting pay for the ones that arnt

That cant be done just by a mild progression and removal of non hitting numbers after a cycle.

The net you are fishing with has holes in and just sewing them up after a cycle isnt good enough so
you have to get very big fish to pay for all the little ones that are escaping.

I get all that, but the missing link is how.

In the case of TG, it seems to be some magic progression. Thats the bit that isnt explained.

thats the bit that probably will not be explained....and I personally cant make work.

Too vague. Progression isn't going to help unless the flat-betting strategy is figured out first.

...
The erosion of bankroll to the house edge is not inevitable at all and variance to a certain extent can be controlled...more so long term than short...but both have an element of control available

Just took the top sheet off my stack of spins
38 spins
1 - 5x
1- 4x
2 -3x
5 - repeats
13 - single hits

22 numbers hit
16 with nothing

next 6 spins
5 of the 6 hits came from numbers in the last 38 spins...and 22 is on the short side of the norm because of the 5 time and 4 time hitters...so there were plenty of numbers that had not hit in now 44 spins just sitting there waiting...while somebody plays those 16 sleepers they get one hit...the guy on the 22 that had hit...5 hits

next 6 spins (against the rolling 38 previous numbers)
4 hits on previously hit numbers...2 misses

next 6 spins
again 4 hits against 2 misses

Now if I play lets say 26 numbers (to get closer to the norm for examples sake) and get 4 hits and 2 misses every six spins without money management and stoplosses I am pretty close to the HE...but I killed it upfront in the first 38 spins (I probably picked a bad example...again a 5 and a 4 hitter are a little out of ordinary but wasn't gonna grab a second sheet for times sake)

But the player using sleepers or even a random sampling of numbers not taking into account what had already hit...that player is likely getting maybe a 50/50 ratio on this particular 26 number bet (I know each 26 number bet would have different results...just looking at one example with real spins I played)...I win 67%...there's an edge regardless of whoevers head is exploding with applying a belief that because 38 unique numbers can show...that they will show

But...if I can concentrate on a changing rotation of 20-28 numbers to select from out of the 38 available and look at hot wheel sectors and do a little (alot actually) of analysis of how to ride the waves of numbers as they appear and repeat and have enough bankroll to see things thru

Variance can be controlled, but here we are not using any process to control it. It's no different to saying that Red has to catch up with Black, but neither take on any extra pulling power should the other be above maths expectation of 50%. So here we are without any valid statements/facts that might help us use repeats to our advantage.

...
8 of those numbers showed up at least twice
3 of those numbers showed up at least three times
2 numbers showed up four times.
...
You "could" bet on the numbers that showed up only once - but you would lose on those numbers
exactly at the house edge - so a bit silly of an idea. But that's up to you.
You Certainly would bet on the numbers that showed up twice - those 5 numbers would be a nice profit maker.
You Most Certainly would bet on the numbers that showed up three times ! - very nice profit from those.
And you would be a fool not to bet on the numbers that showed up four times !

So what kind of money would you put on them ?
Well, common sense would tell you that they all make profit regardless - but my time machine isn't going to be around in the future so you're going to have to make some choices.
You'll bet a minimal amount on the numbers that had 1 show
You'd bet more on the 2 show numbers
You'd bet even more on the 3 show numbers and
You'd bet a LOT on the 4 show numbers... This is a aggressive progression
and you're not worried because with the time machine you can't lose.
...
Use the same logic on the next 38 spins that you don't know.... correct ? It's not rocket science.
You can say "There's no way of knowing the next spin..." and that is correct.
You can say "There's no way of knowing that a number with 1 show is going to be a number that has 2 or more shows" - and that is correct. BUT - the only numbers that will have 2 shows are numbers that appeared once. See ?
...
However - if you play every number Except for the last 2 numbers that end up appearing (this could be 150 spins or more ? it varies) You never play at the house edge at all.
...
The aggressive progression not only covers the numbers that appear "at average" if you choose to play them - it boosts your profits beyond flat betting and does not involve chasing a loss or digging out of a hole - it's not a negative progression, it's a positive one based on wins.

These are all solid statements and there's no erroneous mentions of variance avoidance techniques. Betting varying amounts is not the same as the positive progression suggested since, and flat-betting should suffice in terms of testing the above. So the above should be brought into context with the original statement that has more to say about the limits of repeats happening in 37-spins:

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

To add to this we have one from Reddwarf:

If I wait for a N repeats of a number and start betting on all numbers that repeated N times, the higher N, the higher the less unique numbers I need to bet on.

[Madi]

@ pago

Have u outlined something new? We finished it in february and this is august. Ye we got it in 37 spin there will be 3-5 number more than twice. So what? Can u win in 37 spin?

[Pogo]

@ pago

Have u outlined something new? We finished it in february and this is august. Ye we got it in 37 spin there will be 3-5 number more than twice. So what? Can u win in 37 spin?

Did you get it after 6 months?  It took me 6 hours of reading. I don't think this is something new.  In fact it is probably older than any of us on this board.

Can u win in 37 spin?

99 times out of 100, yes.  The other 1 will be a small loss.

[Madi]

Then u r genious . Turbo win in couple of 37 spin cycle and u win in only one cycle. Very good . Show us some graph

[Madi]

In fact u r the first person that i have seen saying playing repeater in 37 spin you can win 99 %. Happy to follow you. Show us some more