@ turbo

[jule67]

normaly from 37 a 52  will go 2 at 4 numbers  fron 2 reapeters at 3 repeat.maybe can do something with this 

[winkel]

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.

Bayes,

I never ever called myself a Guru nor did I behave that way.
Everyone is allowed of being pround of the things he achieved.
I don´t know why you have to mention me this way.

I´m absolutely right having stopped any posting in forums like this. there are only angry old man, shitting AP-Players, Balloneys of all kind and no sense at all.

[Drazen]

Bayes,

I´m absolutely right having stopped any posting in forums like this. there are only angry old man, shitting AP-Players, Balloneys of all kind and no sense at all.

From what I see on his website, a forum of his in preparation too, so I am sure at least it will be deprived of such things. 

[RouletteGhost]

I barely post anymore either


I created strategies and silly ways to play because I like the game

It's an uphill battle on forums

Not worth it.

[Turner]

You just come across as an attention seeking knobhead

lol.....you hit the nail on the head my friend

Seems there are 4 types (just my opinion, so if the hairs start to rise on the back of your neck, take an antihistamine)

A: people who genuinely have studied the game and realize the unfair payout will always be in the casinos favour, no matter what flavour you place those chips (which doesnt change the odds or improve the accuracy of your bet selection) unless you cheat with computers or advantage play (I mean the Casinos interpretation of cheating)

B: People who know all that but have gained some ego boosting kudos in grabbing an audience while their ego fights to oppose what they already know is true (i.e. what A: says)

C: Newbies who are acolytes of B: because they just started out with high hopes and dont want to believe A: because their pilgrimage will have ended before it began

D: Falkor   

[cht]

With comments directed at personal level this forum will go dead, stays dead.

I read a lot of useless personality fights on most forums.

If YOU need to sound smart, put others down, need to win arguments on forums, quite clear you're not making money at the casino. I've no time to waste on such triviality.

Winkel, RG put such posters on ignore, there's no need to respond.

Steve, you might want to tighten moderation on personal level post and comments.

Is there a forum where there's open discussion focused on money making ideas ?

[Turner]

With comments directed at personal level this forum will go dead, stays dead.

I read a lot of useless personality fights on most forums.

If YOU need to sound smart, put others down, need to win arguments on forums, quite clear you're not making money at the casino. I've no time to waste on such triviality.

Winkel, RG put such posters on ignore, there's no need to respond.

Steve, you might want to tighten moderation on personal level post and comments.

Is there a forum where there's open discussion focused on money making ideas ?

A precis:
Can all the A's shut the f*** up and let the C's get on with feeding the B's egos

[TurboGenius]

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.

I wasn't going to bother but... since you didn't see it when posted I assume.
-----


    ======================================================================
    April 30th / bankroll: $445,417.00 / from roulette: $335,300.00 / roulette balance: $335,300.00
    May 7th / bankroll: $710,867.00 / from roulette: $249,200.00 / roulette balance: $584,500.00
    May 9th / bankroll: $960,267.00 / from roulette: $240,400.00 / roulette balance: $824,900.00
    May 14th / bankroll: $1,242,767.00 / from roulette: $516,400.00 / roulette balance: $1,341,300.00
    May 21st / bankroll: $1,749,967.00 / from roulette: $479,700.00 / roulette balance: $1,821,000.00
    May 28th / bankroll: $2,359,822.00 / from roulette: $457,520.00 / roulette balance: $2,278,520.00
    June 9th / bankroll: $3,660,342.00 / from roulette: $1,119,300.00 / roulette balance: $3,397,820.00
    June 17th / bankroll: $4,000,094.00 / from roulette: $507,300.00 / roulette balance: $3,905,120.00
    June 18th / bankroll: $4,179,791.00 / from roulette: $761,500.00 / roulette balance: $4,159,320.00
    June 25th / bankroll: $5,050,207.00 / from roulette: $1,425,810.00 / roulette balance: $5,585,130.00
    July 2nd / bankroll: $7,116,855.00 / from roulette: $1,861,100.00 / roulette balance: $7,446,230.00
    ======================================================================
exactly 24,005 spins where bets were placed.

And I know, this proves nothing - not enough spins, fixed game, toy wheel, etc. We covered all that on the other forum - even to the point where I proved each and every one of these things were false, yet it doesn't matter.
So to the people that have figured it out - good for them. To people who refuse to believe it's possible - good for them. I could care less.
And please don't group me in with other people - there's only me.
I have clearly demonstrated how roulette "is" beaten. I've posted how it's done. I've posted why it works.
I've posted RX, actuals, online casinos with live wheels and others with RNG - I've wasted entirely too much time trying to convince people what I'm saying is fact. It's clearly not worth my time to continue to do so.
It's all BS ?  That's fine with me, opinions are everywhere - everyone has one. You can ignore everything I said and call it nonsense - it matters not to me. What's done is done.
I had to do a lot of reading to catch up in this thread and it really makes me wonder sometimes.
---
"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?"

I hope for your sake you re-read this over and over.
They absolutely don't have the same chance of hitting as any other number.
You do know that (for example) the last 5 numbers could go 100-200 spins or more (or less) without appearing.
So if you are 38 spins in (for example) and have 16 un-hit numbers left.... you DO realise that 5 of those (for example) are going to not appear for potentially a long time. It's not the same math anymore.
Would you bet on a number knowing full well that's it's very likely a long term sleeper ? No, you wouldn't.
The opposite ? Playing repeaters. Would you play numbers that have shown knowing that there WILL be repeaters ?
If not - or if you still don't understand this.. there's no point.
There's actually no point in posting this - you won't stop to think logically, nor Steve, nor the nay-sayers who are stuck on "each spin is independent" and the game is "one spin" followed by "one spin".
There's nothing I nor anyone else can do or say to change this obviously, you'll either get it or not.
I made it perfectly clear that "my" way doesn't require me to be perfect. I don't need to hit and win on every hot number - just 1,2,3 maybe of the top 15 etc... and this is so easy a baby can do it.
You can go back to calling it BS and say I'm not being specific enough (still) for you. Or "it's all fixed" or "all BS" or whatever you want to avoid what's slapping you in the face repeatedly.

[falkor2k15]

So if you are 38 spins in (for example) and have 16 un-hit numbers left.... you DO realise that 5 of those (for example) are going to not appear for potentially a long time. It's not the same math anymore.

Does that mean you are relying on variance from previous cycles to win the current cycle? Or can you win each cycle without knowledge of the previous?

[Steve]

I don´t know why you have to mention me this way.

There are actually many members who haven't provided a system any better than other systems. Some people have a following of people, some dont. Anyone who has a following needs to be very careful to not mislead people. And everyone needs to be responsible for understanding and testing facts.

It's an uphill battle on forums

Disagreements are a natural part of life. The problem in this case is some people mislead others. But the misled people need to be responsible for themselves too. When more experienced members try to help, they can sometimes be too forceful. But there's a time also for being blunt.

Steve, you might want to tighten moderation on personal level post and comments.

I haven't seen anything needing moderation. But we all need to keep it civil and productive.

Is there a forum where there's open discussion focused on money making ideas ?

Any forum. Just listen to the people that have experience who also give supporting evidence you can verify. And ignore people who make claims that oppose logic and don't have supporting information.

======================================================================
    April 30th / bankroll: $445,417.00 / from roulette: $335,300.00 / roulette balance: $335,300.00
    May 7th / bankroll: $710,867.00 / from roulette: $249,200.00 / roulette balance: $584,500.00
    May 9th / bankroll: $960,267.00 / from roulette: $240,400.00 / roulette balance: $824,900.00
    May 14th / bankroll: $1,242,767.00 / from roulette: $516,400.00 / roulette balance: $1,341,300.00
    May 21st / bankroll: $1,749,967.00 / from roulette: $479,700.00 / roulette balance: $1,821,000.00
    May 28th / bankroll: $2,359,822.00 / from roulette: $457,520.00 / roulette balance: $2,278,520.00
    June 9th / bankroll: $3,660,342.00 / from roulette: $1,119,300.00 / roulette balance: $3,397,820.00
    June 17th / bankroll: $4,000,094.00 / from roulette: $507,300.00 / roulette balance: $3,905,120.00
    June 18th / bankroll: $4,179,791.00 / from roulette: $761,500.00 / roulette balance: $4,159,320.00
    June 25th / bankroll: $5,050,207.00 / from roulette: $1,425,810.00 / roulette balance: $5,585,130.00
    July 2nd / bankroll: $7,116,855.00 / from roulette: $1,861,100.00 / roulette balance: $7,446,230.00
    ======================================================================
exactly 24,005 spins where bets were placed.

Turbo, I previously explained the math of parxonline in detail. It is wrong and misleading to cite these results when the player has the edge at parx. But I'll simplify.... when the casino gives you extra free money to play with every day, you are going to keep profiting provided you don't play too much. You need to play at the right level, and you'll be guaranteed profit. The parxonline results are very misleading. Anyone can achieve these results with random bets.

And I know, this proves nothing - not enough spins, fixed game, toy wheel, etc. We covered all that on the other forum - even to the point where I proved each and every one of these things were false, yet it doesn't matter.

No you didn't prove anything of the sort. No casino pays you every day just for turning up. That's where the player edge starts.
If you played 37 spins per day, and started with $1,000 and were paid $1,000 just for logging in, your edge for the day is about +30%.

Now imagine logging in day after day to maximize your bonus, and manage to win one of the top prizes just once. From that point, you have a massive injection of free funds in your account. From that point, as long as you keep playing, you'll continue to have a much higher edge than anyone and your profit is virtually guaranteed to keep increasing.

Again you dont appear to understand the math. But to simplify it further, you say its realistic. Which real casino gives you free money every day just for visiting?

And please don't group me in with other people - there's only me.

Even Fossel was high in the leaderboard. Again anyone would be if they played enough. Just most people dont have spare time to play with fun credits.

I've posted RX, actuals, online casinos with live wheels and others with RNG - I've wasted entirely too much time trying to convince people what I'm saying is fact. It's clearly not worth my time to continue to do so.

All I've seen you post from RX is a series of short term tests. How many similar results are on forums? Are they all HGs?

It's all BS ?  That's fine with me, opinions are everywhere - everyone has one. You can ignore everything I said and call it nonsense - it matters not to me. What's done is done.
I had to do a lot of reading to catch up in this thread and it really makes me wonder sometimes.

You dont seem to understand the math. You are misleading people, although I think it's mostly because you dont understand the math. Why spend all that time on parx if you want to prove yourself? Why not the MPR or a real online casino? Why would you choose a casino that pays you credits for logging in?

There's actually no point in posting this - you won't stop to think logically, nor Steve, nor the nay-sayers who are stuck on "each spin is independent" and the game is "one spin" followed by "one spin".

Its not me who isnt thinking logically. The math is actually quite clear.

And you have contradicted yourself many times. You say you dont change the odds, so why choose repeaters? Then you said you do change the odds. So which is it? You use progression on hot numbers, but anyone who has tested properly knows a hot number is just as likely to spin next, or anytime soon, as any other number. This has been tested exhaustively. By your approach, after 2 hits on a number, you'd bet on that number with a progression. Why? It wouldnt change anything.

Again it's nothing personal. It has nothing to do with how I play. I only respond in detail for the sake of accuracy and helping people.

[Taotie]

...the misled people need to be responsible for themselves too...

If we could all truly let the insightful nature of this quoted comment really sink in and take hold, then we would all get along just fine. 


"link:s://:.youtube.com/embed/MPMmC0UAnj0"

[Steve]

Vegas..

[Turner]

The parxonline results are very misleading. Anyone can achieve these results with random bets.

I must admit, I dont get what the point of all these Parxonline results is.

Its like me saying I killed 100s of solders in Afghanistan then you find out I am talking about playing Call of Duty

[Bayes]

So to the people that have figured it out - good for them.

And why do people have to "figure it out"? To Winkel, Turbo, priyanka, denzie and any other "baiters", I'd like to remind you of the forum rules, specifically rule 9, which says:

9. No "baiting", which is where you brag about how great your system is, but you don't share anything except perhaps obscure details that lead people along. The forum is a place for open sharing. If you "bait" people, expect to be banned.


As far as I'm aware, this rule has rarely if ever been enforced. Why not? it's a good rule IMO. I don't have an issue with anyone bragging about how great their system is, as long as they post clear instructions on how to play it. If the system seems absurd, so what? As long as instructions are given, and the system creator responds to requests for clarification etc then there's no problem. No one need indulge in personal attacks when everything is transparent and open. Members can try the sytem for themselves. If it doesn't work for them, they can tell the original poster, suggest improvements, and so on. Actually, this is what goes on most of the time here anyway.

It's only when grand claims are made but only hints are given that the trouble starts. Members are quite rightly pissed off when this happens, because it gives the baiter power over the "baitee". Openness,  transparency, and the egalitarian principles of a public forum are compromised, and there is always the suspicion that the baiter has ulterior motives (such as "sales by pm").

I'm not "attacking" any of the above-mentioned posters. As Steve rightly says, those who are misled need to take responsibility too. And in any forum, as any sphere of life, there are strong, persuasive, and charismatic personalities - people who like to have power! Nothing wrong with that in general, but I don't think it's appropriate in a public discussion forum. Take away the opportunity for power (the "baiting") and it becomes a non-issue, although there will still be disagreements.

[Steve]

The baiting rule is only enforced in extreme cases, where nothing of actual substance is given.. like a principle that can be tested.

For example in falkors case, he gave information like roof structure which was beyond vague. But he eventually provided actual examples of his theories. The problem was they were flat incorrect. Falkor is usually moderated to at least remind him not be to so incredibly vague.

Turbo provided enough detail, and kudos for sharing. But the problem again major parts of his claims were incorrect.

Baiting that results in banning would need to be severe like it was with ceh, where nothing testable was provided over a long period of time. Just waffle and endless clues. In such a case it was sickening to watch and something needed to be done.