@ turbo

[Bettingking]

Yes i agree. I have not read every page here. Is your preferred method with repeats here near the beginning or is it trial and error with hints like Falkor teases.....if there is any merett to anything that looks into the universe for answers. Lol

[cht]

The correct way to look at it is to do proper testing.
See the maximum drawdown and the current bankroll balance - once you've tested
enough spins.
If your max drawdown is 2k and your current bankroll is 20k - then you're fine.
If your current bankroll over many tested spins is still less then the biggest drawdown - don't continue on with that line of thinking.
As I said - my way doesn't require digging out of holes. There are drawdowns and yes it recovers every single time. As long as a numbers repeat - it can't lose.

Hi TurboGenius,

We all have gone over this ground umpteen times whether your way, all that you posted on forums, your Parx results is legitimate or not.

I have done a thorough re-assessment of unhit, hit, R1, R2....and so on again.

I finally "understand" your way what you've tried to communicate to us readers with your posts repeating much the same thing always, no more no less.

Now I admit I was wrong about your way will not work. It works as you describe how it will happen and your Parx result is a possible reflection of what is possible playing your way, you have no reason to fake the result. I will add that this is possibly the best way ever to win at the random roulette game.

Thank you for sharing your way and to be in line with your intent on the extent shared on forums that's all I'll say about this.

cht

[Steve]

CHT, I suggest you go back and test properly. TG's theories, comments and testing methods are full of many holes. Its not just me who sees it - Anyone with proper understanding of roulette says the same thing.

[cht]

CHT, I suggest you go back and test properly. TG's theories, comments and testing methods are full of many holes. Its not just me who sees it - Anyone with proper understanding of roulette says the same thing.

I understand your reservation. I also understand your pov and the many, many others who wrote about this. I share the same pov until I did proper tests. It told me otherwise.

My post above is not to validate TG's theories, comments and testing methods. I did tests based on my understanding of TG's way how he plays the game. It's not rationale not to retract my earlier comments and correct them. All that said in my humble opinion.

[Steve]

Ive done my tests too. One of us missing something. I have an open mind about it, but at some point I have to dismiss it when I cant see one valid point he has. Really I'd love to be wrong, but I cant find a single valid and relevant point to substantiate his claims. Instead I got contradictions and his misunderstandings.

[TurboGenius]

Thank you for sharing your way and to be in line with your intent on the extent shared on forums that's all I'll say about this.

You're welcome, and thank you as well.

One of us missing something.

And that is the truth.

[DoctorSudoku]

Ive done my tests too. One of us missing something. I have an open mind about it, but at some point I have to dismiss it when I cant see one valid point he has. Really I'd love to be wrong, but I cant find a single valid and relevant point to substantiate his claims. Instead I got contradictions and his misunderstandings.

Steve,
Over the last few months, I have done a lot of testing of Turbo's version of the repeaters method with my collection of dealer-spun and airball wheel spins. My tests have consistently shown that his version drags you down into deep negative progression territory quite frequently -- and the more you try to dig yourself out of the hole, the deeper the hole gets.

I do want to mention that betting on repeaters is one of the more promising betting strategies out there (there are multiple versions of this betting strategy).

However, Turbo's version is NOT one of the better ones.

There are other versions that have been proposed by forum members that give you a better chance of coming out with a profit on a more consistent basis.

[denzie]

Over the last few months, I have done a lot of testing of Turbo's version of the repeaters method with my collection of dealer-spun and airball wheel spins. My tests have consistently shown that his version drags you down into deep negative progression territory quite frequently -- and the more you try to dig yourself out of the hole, the deeper ....

Pls enlighten how TG plays....just to clarify your doing it correct. Thx (coz he never posted how and his graphs where played different)

[DoctorSudoku]

Turbo's idea essentially entails betting from spin no. 1 of a cycle and keep betting every number that appears subsequently. He advocates using a positive progression whereby you bet more on numbers that repeat (more on multiple repeaters).

The biggest problem that I have experienced with the above approach is that sometimes (in fact, quite frequently) the first repeater appears well after spin no. 10 or beyond -- and that's when you start getting into a hole (and using a negative progression makes you sink deeper into the hole).

Compared to Turbo's approach of starting betting from the very first spin , I have found that specifically targeting 2-peaters to become 3-peaters usually gives better results.

I mentioned this to you several months ago on another thread. At that time, you asked me why I stopped at 3-peaters and not go for 4-peaters and beyond.

I have tested 3-peaters going to 4-peaters and 4-peaters going to 5-peaters. My testing has consistently shown that targeting 2-peaters to become 3-peaters seems to be the most fruitful way of exploiting repeaters (or numbers hitting above average).

At least as of today, that has been my experience.

More tinkering with alternate ways of targeting repeaters might lead to a more better approach. That is why researching different ways of betting on repeaters is something that I will keep doing for the foreseeable future.

[DoctorSudoku]

By the way, it was your posts on different threads advocating betting on repeaters (that is, the so-called "hot numbers" that are hitting more than average in a cycle) that got me interested in this topic -- and I thank you for that.      

[Steve]

One of us missing something.
And that is the truth.

Its really easy to fall back on this claim. But for people who understand better, you have made glaringly obvious mistakes and contradictions you cant explain, except by saying we "you don't understand". Anyway let's not go in circles again.

[Madi]

3-4 or 4-5 wont give u win. While u ll find that in 2 cycle  the numbers are still in 4s but by averaging it should be on 5s.

[Madi]

[quote author=DoctorSudoku link=topic=18348.msg188174#msg188174 date

The biggest problem that I have experienced with the above approach is that sometimes (in fact, quite frequently) the first repeater appears well after spin no. 10 or beyond --


3-4 number to play . What u r missing then.
[/quote]

[Madi]

A number appears 5 times and he win 4 time exactly on that number. Not 2 or 3 times

[ozon]

I can describe how I made 12k units using the TURBO assumptions
I do not know if it was a good way, but unfortunately it stopped at a certain point, later a neutral trend followed and no longer generated a profit.
I started with the first spin