@ turbo

[Steve]

Kinda like what you and Bayes post every few pages

The difference is accuracy.

We get it. We totally get your point.

Actually you don't get the point.

When I see bullshit, I explain why it's bullshit. The exception is if it's in the system players only section, where reason is a touchy subject. But I guarantee I wont tell anyone they're wrong there.

And actually I mostly ignore inaccurate information. I usually say my part and leave it alone. When I do respond, I don't drone on with vague jargon. I give specific details including how anyone can verify the facts for themselves. You may not appreciate it, but others may.

[Bayes]

We get it.

I don't think so. And who is "we" anyway? Speak for yourself.

It's really odd how certain members get a reputation for being gurus when they have actually demonstrated nothing at all. Turbo, priyanka, winkel, etc. Their only talent seems to be self-promotion and making grandiose claims, but not a shred of evidence has ever been given. On the basis of hot air and meaningless clues they have been elevated to legends! sycophants hang on their every word and suck up to them hoping to get some pearls of wisdom!

Wake up and smell the BS guys.

[cht]

The exception is if it's in the system players only section, where reason is a touchy subject. But I guarantee I wont tell anyone they're wrong there.

I just learned this. I believe many posters were not aware of this.

Steve, should this topic be transfered to system players only section ?

[Steve]

No because i started this thread to give turbos preachings an honest assessment. It was actually his open invitation to anyone. I even gave the flat earth crap a lot of my time only to conclude its complete crap. And i explained why i believe that. Likewise i explained why i dont find turbos approaches to be anything but nonsense. I often see ignorant people unwilling to consider another side, and im not going to be the same. Ill at least look in detail to understand the other sides view. But when its bullshit ill say it, and why. My opinions on things like these arent just opinions. They are just what the facts make clear.

If anyone wants to start a thread in that section, they can. But there is a real danger of preventing more sane and accurate information from interrupting ignorance and inexperience. Still, thats what can be done in that section.

[Bayes]

You wouldn't bet a single thing on the 13 numbers that never appeared (why on earth would you ?)
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.

So all of this makes sense - and the naysayers can say "well we don't have a time machine".
And guess what - you don't need one.
I made this clear in other posts - those numbers that appeared 4 times were numbers that had appeared 3 times.
Those numbers that appeared 3 times were only numbers that appeared 2 times
and the numbers that appeared 2 times were only numbers that appeared once.
All of the numbers that never appeared ? They never appeared.......
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 ?
Steve rightly said that systems are useless.. "If accuracy of bet selection doesn't increase, no progression can consistently win."
Now your accuracy just increased (and greatly).
As a matter of fact - by NOT betting on numbers that never show you are no longer playing/winning/losing at the house edge.
You can test this - it's not hard to do. I did it at the other forum as an example.
Play every number on the table for 38 spins - you'll end at the house edge.
Play every number on the table but only once it shows - you won't end at the house edge.
Play every number on the table but only after it shows twice - again - you won't win/lose at the house edge.
You can continue this on for quite a while.
The "house edge" on a 38 pocket wheel is 2 numbers.
If you play every number on the table for 38 spins, you will be down 2 units - this is the house edge.
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.
For those who want to test things - there's where to begin.
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.

Thanks for reading, I can only hope this sinks in - and if not then you're on your own.

The problem with this, and the whole premise that repeaters and hot numbers are better than betting randomly or on "cold" numbers, is that there is no reason why numbers which have hit once, twice, or X times will hit again while you're betting on them. Turbo doesn't seem to understand why it's not silly to bet on the numbers which haven't appeared, he says "why on earth would you?".

umm... because those numbers have the same chance of hitting as any others?

The faulty logic is that numbers which have hit will be more likely to hit again. That would be true if the outcomes were not random, but they are random. If you collect some spins and sort them hottest to coldest there is no tendency for those at the top of the list to hit more often than any further down the list. Numbers at the top can turn cold and numbers at the bottom can become hot, and there's no consistent pattern to it. This shouldn't be any big surprise given that outcomes are independent.

I wrote a program some years ago which tested many values of X, Y, and Z for the system: "bet on the numbers which have hit X times in the last Y spins, for z spins. X, Y and Z can take many values ranging from 1 to whatever you like. X can take the value zero too, meaning that there have been no hits in the last Y spins. Each value of X, Y, and Z represents a different system. It took a couple of days to get the results because there were thousands of systems, but in the end no system performed better than any other. Again, just what you would expect from the maths.

[cht]

No because i started this thread to give turbos preachings an honest assessment. It was actually his open invitation to anyone. I even gave the flat earth crap a lot of my time only to conclude its complete crap. And i explained why i believe that. Likewise i explained why i dont find turbos approaches to be anything but nonsense. I often see ignorant people unwilling to consider another side, and im not going to be the same. Ill at least look in detail to understand the other sides view. But when its bullshit ill say it, and why. My opinions on things like these arent just opinions. They are just what the facts make clear.

If anyone wants to start a thread in that section, they can. But there is a real danger of preventing more sane and accurate information from interrupting ignorance and inexperience. Still, thats what can be done in that section.

Ok, this thread is about turbo and his ideas - the title. My bad I didn't read, I thought this was some exploratory discussion.

I don't think your bs call is wrong. In the absence of concrete evidence, it's bs turbo or whatever no compromise on this. Frankly, even if evidence from someone else is handed to me, it's still not good enough for me. It's up to each one of us to do our own due diligence.

[Steve]

cht its more complicated than that be ause turbo made contradictory statements, and statements that make clear accuracy is not changed, but it us changed, but not changed, and so on. I followed what turbo has said and its nothing personal but he was wrong. And the whole thing with parksonline was misleading.

Anyway its ok to be wrong. Im just trying to help people avoid wasting time. Ive explained all the details in earlier posts

[MoneyT101]

I haven't really looked into this repeater  method much.

But I understand that logic a bit.

Why would you play cold numbers? 

1. Quality(hot numbers) vs quantity(cold numbers)

2.random stats already says all 37 will not really show up in a cycle of 37 spins.  Meaning numbers will repeat!

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not sure which method they achieved but I'm sure there is a way to take advantage. 

Billions of spins will not help until you know exactly what your testing!!!!!! 

So Steve and bayes, YOU ARE RIGHT!  There is no method that you guys have tested that can win.  BUT YOU GUYS DONT HAVE THE RIGHT METHOD TO TEST AND BECAUSE OF THIS, YOU WILL NOT HAVE THE CORRECT RESULTS!

[cht]

I haven't really looked into this repeater  method much.

But I understand that logic a bit.

Why would you play cold numbers? 

1. Quality(hot numbers) vs quantity(cold numbers)

2.random stats already says all 37 will not really show up in a cycle of 37 spins.  Meaning numbers will repeat!

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not sure which method they achieved but I'm sure there is a way to take advantage. 

Billions of spins will not help until you know exactly what your testing!!!!!! 

So Steve and bayes, YOU ARE RIGHT!  There is no method that you guys have tested that can win.  BUT YOU GUYS DONT HAVE THE RIGHT METHOD TO TEST AND BECAUSE OF THIS, YOU WILL NOT HAVE THE CORRECT RESULTS!

The bolded part, you got that one right. Now will probasah and the 4 guys he mentioned lay it on this thread for all to see ? No. Both parties are right except they speak not of the same thing.

On my part, from the small sample I tested the data suggests a bias. Remember - a very, very small sample. I don't have the time to test further nor will I.

[Steve]

Enough of what turbo has said is black and white, not grey. If those black and white comments are to be taken seriously, Turbo has said enough, with condtradictions, to show his approach doesnt work and he doesnt even understand why. Its nothing personal at all.

[Bayes]

Why would you play cold numbers? 

1. Quality(hot numbers) vs quantity(cold numbers)

2.random stats already says all 37 will not really show up in a cycle of 37 spins.  Meaning numbers will repeat!

Sure, numbers will repeat. But which ones? There is no way to predict on the random wheel.

BUT YOU GUYS DONT HAVE THE RIGHT METHOD TO TEST AND BECAUSE OF THIS, YOU WILL NOT HAVE THE CORRECT RESULTS!

If all the logic and evidence points to hot numbers not being a superior bet, what makes you think there is a "right" method which hasn't been discovered yet?

In this case it's reasonable to say that "absence of evidence is  evidence of absence"

[cht]

As I know there are 3 ways to bet on repeats notwithstanding unsubstantiated variance avoidance claims:

1) Parallel streams:
Number: X,X,X,X,X
Position: Y,Y,Y,Y,Y,Y

You need values from both streams (X,Y) in order to be able to improve accuracy of predictions. And the predictions must be based around a repeats (or other non-random) framework.

Is this possible ? Has anyone tested this ?

Falkor, what's your findings ?

[falkor2k15]

Is this possible ?

It's about the only thing that does work... I tested number repeats till blue in the face over millions of spins, looking for a simple method that doesn't involve parallel streams... all different simulations/tests carried out (including in microcosm using dozens in 4 spins)... Hot numbers have same chance as cold numbers. No way to break unfair payout odds problem. You could bet a more likely event such as 15 numbers compared to 5 numbers, but all is compensated by the payout odds (or risk/reward factor - 15 numbers repeat quicker but pay less). However, the moment you look at the numbers stream with additional info coming from the positions stream then you can see an extra dimension to what is happening!

Alternatively, you could simply bet on-behalf of the numbers (foundation vs. roof). Let's say we expect a number repeat on spin 7:
Example 1: 1,10,14,18,22,31
Example 2: 1,3,7,14,17,18

Example 1 would require 6 units if betting individual numbers, but you could probably reduce it to 4-5 units by transposing to corners or double streets.
Example 2 only requires 1 unit because all numbers are in the low EC bracket!

Example 3: 1,3,7,9,11,13,15,17,19,21,23,25,27,29

Here we just bet on Odd = 1 unit! And even if you don't want to study the positions stream in any detail, you could take out the oldest numbers from that list since the repeat will mostly occur on recent numbers:
1,3,7,9,11,13,15,
vs.
17,19,21,23,25,27,29
The 2nd bunch is a better choice - providing they appeared in that order!

It's also evident from how Priyanka plays that if a number has repeated several times, i.e. 3x or 4x, there are further exclusions that can be made - but only when considering this problem from a transposition context - preferably aided by the position values, too.
link:s://:.youtube.com/watch?v=3J4Lf7zxk4I


The Corners that were selected based on the individual numbers:


And when the Corners were selected they were chosen with respect to recent numbers (positions) and which numbers had already repeated during the previous Double Streets transposition:


If you are using Double Streets instead of numbers then you could use bring in Streets as a parallel game. However, since numbers doesn't officially have anything better, it's co-dependents are limited to positions or a self-defined stream such as numbers stitched to ECs over the course of 2 spins per trial, but this is unnecessary... Numbers + Positions is all that's really require to achieve 45 degree graphs - believe it or not. But without it, is like trying to solve an inequality with only 1 expression instead of the 2 or more needed expressions - all based on number patterns over multiple spins - and never with regards to predicting the next spin (cannot be done; hence the repetitive betting style seen in Priyanka's video).

[cht]

I tested along the same lines. In fact I read your much earlier post that pointed me in this path. My findings are exactly the same as yours playing around with various other 'streams'. If the 'timing' is ripe, ie. the number of numbers vs payout is favorable, the result looks good. Hypothetically, we should only place bets when this condition is met. It does fail but the success outweighs the failure in my very small sample tested. This line of thought deserves further expanded testing imho. You/others might want to take it from here.

[MoneyT101]

I tested along the same lines. In fact I read your much earlier post that pointed me in this path. My findings are exactly the same as yours playing around with various other 'streams'. If the 'timing' is ripe, ie. the number of numbers vs payout is favorable, the result looks good. Hypothetically, we should only place bets when this condition is met. It does fail but the success outweighs the failure in my very small sample tested. This line of thought deserves further expanded testing imho. You/others might want to take it from here.

This is what Pri was trying to teach.  But a much more advanced method