@ turbo

[nottophammer]

So now it's a conspiracy? Oh please...

Took the bait hook line and sinker 

[denzie]

So now it's a conspiracy

I kneeeeeeeeeeeew it

[Turner]

Ray
what if the owner, Bayes, Turner and even Falkor understand how a nice easy bet this is, that they don't wont others jumping on the wagon, so they try to confuse and make it look like it fails.

LOL....like West Ham being a top club is a conspiracy?

[nottophammer]

who rattled your cage

[Turner]

Sorry...I actually like West Ham lol

[nottophammer]

Sorry...I actually like West Ham lol

Only because you get 6 points 

[falkor2k15]

Coldest Line test failed as well... one dataset ended way in the + and the other way in the -. Perhaps the streets test was due to variance, as the negative edge is very small anyhow. And why would it work on Streets and not Lines? Priyanka's favourite group is the lines, so I think there isn't enough to go on here. As I said, I tested hot many times, and the only findings were with the positions stream. Perhaps TurboGenius is using a parallel stream, but just isn't saying... I leave you with another quote from reddwarf, whom I consider the number 1 authority on Roulette:

1. Betting on an unique does not work (=guessing game)
2. Betting on a repeat is not going to work (=guessing game)

I found it a really tough journey to free myself from the black hole of "waiting for an event to happen" for example: you can try to bet on repeats, but this is nothing more than a guessing game (hence a loosing proposition); not that repeats can not be used...

Reddwarf also had this to say about the multiple repeats / progression method - similar to what's being promoted by Turbo:

win probability: 99. 74%, but because it is a progression, a loss will hammer you.  So if a different approach would be needed here.

Anyway, it was worth a try.

And I will finish by saying the same thing: it was worth a try - but I seriously doubt it's viable without a parallel stream...

[cht]

Falkor, no surprise with your findings, it's random.

About parallel stream, here's the one I tested (single zero) -

1. Timing - start immediately after the 14unhit/23hits

2. Parallel streams - left/right and top/bottom of wheel

3. Parallel streams - if one side has a >=+3 over the other side and not not more than 15 (check at point 1, if not skip to start with new spins), ignore zero

4. Where there both l/r and t/b show similar bias gap, choose the one that came in earliest, (always choose the larger gap)

5. Bet hits (chosen hot side numbers) for repeats to hit 3times then stop. If loss -3 stop

6. Break-even - If there're already 2 repeats and the net profit/loss is in positive, do not go for the bet for the 3rd repeat if the net positive balance is reduced to zero

There you have it, no secrets no big deal.  Now, will this hold up tested over a large sample IDK. Can somebody kindly test this, post the results ? If it fails as well I'm not surprise, it's worth a try. Thanks

[maestro]

whom I consider the number 1 authority on Roulette:

@falkor...where can i read his teachings..thx

[cht]

Here's the Nickmsi spreadsheet that I expanded for the above. You can test whatever parallel stream by changing the lookup table on the far right. Let us know what you find.

[cht]

As I told you guys earlier I don't read threads. Since I'm noticed the Repeaters thread today I read it to find notto referenced to another thread started by Colbster "Are there really 37 outcomes". Colbster's explanation is exactly what I had in mind, and Falkor's streams idea comes into play. I noticed it on notto's charts that he posted here. If you're looking for a crytal clear explanation read Colbster's post on that thread especially about the number of numbers to payout and the calculations stuff. Winkel posted the distribution table. You guys were already on it 3 yrs ago. And what guided me to 14/23 ? WTF !

[falkor2k15]

As I told you guys earlier I don't read threads. Since I'm noticed the Repeaters thread today I read it to find notto referenced to another thread started by Colbster "Are there really 37 outcomes". Colbster's explanation is exactly what I had in mind, and Falkor's streams idea comes into play. I noticed it on notto's charts that he posted here. If you're looking for a crytal clear explanation read Colbster's post on that thread. Winkel posted the distribution table. You guys were already on it 3 yrs ago. WTF !

I was thinking about that yesterday and today. The only way Turbo might be winning on single stream numbers instead of dozens is if he's somehow taking advantage of those last few outcomes that aren't really outcomes at all - only occurs in numbers and not in single/double streets or dozens, etc.

I'm still trying to understand your suggested method above, but it seems a little complicated in terms of a trigger? Not sure if I understand it clearly enough yet to begin a test.

[cht]

Colbster described it clearly in post #17 & #19. The only thing I don't agree with him is the cycles where he erases off from the earlier hit number to start a new cycle.

If you do that the old cycle is still in play, that means what happens in the old cycle(good or bad) may still influence the current cycle - you're using the spins on a rolling basis. Why not start with a fresh set of spins, I recommend moving over to a new wheel, they have 20-24spins on the board already so no waiting time. But then the current wheel might favour the repeaters ldk. 

[Moxy]

You have the hg denzie?

One system is no better than another because it's all random accuracy betting. Same odds, same payouts, same thing.

I want to be proven wrong.

So your hobby is fishing for the hg by goading them with future adulation?  I don't care if Turbo has figured it out or not but you went along with him on here till you decided that he was just a baiter which he very well may be by your def.

Regardless, I think we need to redefined that word and acknowledge, in spirit, who the actual baiters are.   

On the flip side it baffles me why people come on here to lay out vague machinations that no can and should follow, only to string them in the end or something.

[Steve]

So your hobby is fishing for the hg by goading them with future adulation?

Huh? Don't make it needlessly complicated. When something is inaccurate, I'll explain why.

I don't care if Turbo has figured it out or not but you went along with him on here till you decided that he was just a baiter which he very well may be by your def.

Actually I specifically said I dont believe he's a baiter. It's a simple case of him being wrong.

Regardless, I think we need to redefined that word and acknowledge, in spirit, who the actual baiters are. 

There are no active "baiters" here at the moment.

On the flip side it baffles me why people come on here to lay out vague machinations that no can and should follow, only to string them in the end or something.

Historically we know why. Typically for attention and ego, at the expense of others.