@ turbo

[TurboGenius]

Secretly probably one of the more intelligent members on this forum. 

I keep reading that and laughing.
Who would "secretly" be intelligent ?
Could a stupid person pull off pretending to be intelligent ? yes.
Could an intelligent person pull off pretending to be stupid ? yes.

I get it though.
If he were posting and backing up what I say - you would be all over him
like flies on (?), calling him uneducated and that he just used fancy words to appear to be smart.
You'll flip any way the wind blows. How strange is that.
People who support what I've said have made some very intelligent posts in
this thread, but since it doesn't support your opinion - you never made a comment
like that about them.
Just wow.

[Madi]

Steve

Do u still think mpr is up to the standard ? Spin file is ok m not talking about that.

Story of last one hour.
Still spin come one after another without pressing ready. I mean two at a time.
Still its running when others placing bet and time not up.
Stuck in 1s several times . Have to refresh to get it working from 1st spin. All previous things gone.

U win some u lose some doesnt work. When u lose its 1 unit. And when win is missing it 35 unit. Not same

Most of the player just log out in the middle of the game bcz of disturbance

[Steve]

There are still bugs but none that would cause anyone to lose or win. The new programmer is still investigating.

[The General]

I keep reading that and laughing.
Who would "secretly" be intelligent ?
Could a stupid person pull off pretending to be intelligent ? yes.
Could an intelligent person pull off pretending to be stupid ? yes.

I get it though.
If he were posting and backing up what I say - you would be all over him
like flies on (?), calling him uneducated and that he just used fancy words to appear to be smart.
You'll flip any way the wind blows. How strange is that.
People who support what I've said have made some very intelligent posts in
this thread, but since it doesn't support your opinion - you never made a comment
like that about them.
Just wow.

He's clearly not who he's pretending to be, which is a flat earth follower.

By the way, he's tested your system and has found that it failed. 
He could though probably offer you some advice on how to make it work better.

[Madi]

There are still bugs but none that would cause anyone to lose or win. The new programmer is still investigating.

I just lose 30 unit on #29  bcz two spin comes back to back before i press rebet. 2 and 29 appear at a time. Anyway will wait till it get fixed

[Steve]

It could just as easily have saved you money, but yes it's being fixed.

[jekhb76]

Not speaking for Turbo, because I dont know his play style.  But I do not use an aggressive progression.  I look at it like playing in sessions.  Start out flat betting single repeaters....once I get a hit, that session ends...I only raise bet after a hit....play 2s to become 3s, then a 3s to become 4s, 4s to become 5s, etc

I only need one session to be positive expectation to end game.  I have yet to see that not happen in a short period of time.  Basically, if there were always an equal distribution of numbers I would lose.  But there is always a leader that passes by 2 or more repeats...this is what I count on happening

The only thing i can say, is that you are playing very Smart 

[jekhb76]

This "we will never have all 37 numbers in 37 spins" debate is simple-
As Turbo says, the likelihood is infinitesimal.
We can all agree on that, and be on the same page, so, how does this help?

I don't believe it can. All we are assuming is that we will have 1 repeat somewhere.
We bet numbers as they appear. So 1 unit, then 2, 3, 4 ,5 ,6 7, 8, wait a minute, that's 36 units! we need a progression.
Well we can easily see 20 or more uniques before a repeat. 18 is quite common. I won't do the maths here, but the dent in the bankroll would be huge. Its a bit like saying, "bet against 20 reds with a martingale", yes you will probably win if you are prepared for the huge risk.

Can I refer anyone interested to my thread "TURBO'S REPEATERS SIMULATION."
link:s://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=20147.0

As you can see I have done some testing, I'm sure others have done much more extensive testing.
But the insinuation with all the "no 37 uniques in 37 spins" talk is that you can win with repeaters within 37 spins!

My programs show that you can flat-bet, you can bet 1 unit on 1-shows, 2-units on 2-shows etc, or you can wait for 3-shows until betting, whatever, you won't win in 37 spins! Or 100 spins.

Actually I think Steve is doing Turbo a favour by pointing out the fallacy. Anyone who believes he has a hg could win for a while, but then end up losing a whole lot more. And as Turbo didn't choose to reply to my question about is it possible to actually write mathematical proof, then I assume there is no mathematical proof.

So..... although you may laugh, Turbo, beware of your own hg. (you read it here 1st.)

Well as long people stick to bet in 37 spin cycles then they won't come very far.
You gotta look at the whole thing from a different angle. But for some it will be very hard to come out of their comfort zone. The ones that can, will make a step forward. Just my oppinion, nothing more.
See , no capitals 

[falkor2k15]

Nothing special about me... I'm just trying to escape this slave system like everyone else. 3-4 years ago when I began testing the Star System I was dumber than dumber when it came to Roulette. The only difference now is that since then I have carried out more than 1,000 tests on an almost daily basis and this has helped me mature. Out of the 1,000 tests I retain about 700-800 of the original scripts/templates used for them to be run over a choice of 1,000, 10K, 100K or 1 mill spins (3 different datasets = 3 million real casino spins). That's the only reason I now have a decent understanding of Roulette - through honest testing and experimentation - since you cannot trust charlatans to inform you of the truth. So don't be a gullible fool like I once was! Hotties is not the answer...

[Joe]

This "we will never have all 37 numbers in 37 spins" debate is simple-
As Turbo says, the likelihood is infinitesimal.
We can all agree on that, and be on the same page, so, how does this help?

I don't believe it can. All we are assuming is that we will have 1 repeat somewhere.

I agree. It's a red herring. You might as well say "you never see 50 reds or blacks in a row". Does this mean that betting on one side continuously is superior to some other bet selection like "follow the last"?

I don't find the arguments for picking hot numbers or repeaters any more convincing than those for betting on cold numbers. If the number of trials is large enough of course you're going to get repeaters. For single numbers you must get at least one repeat in 38 spins on a single zero wheel (that's a certainty, not a probability) but considering just one cycle of 37 spins there are actually more numbers that haven't showed at all, or have only hit once, than numbers which have shown more than once (repeaters). So why not bet on the non-repeaters? The problem of course is that you have no idea which non-repeat is going to show next, and this is exactly the same problem you have if you've chosen to bet on the repeats. So on balance, isn't it better to pick the non-repeats since they are more numerous? If you're not convinced by this argument, you would be right. 

There are two schools of thought in roulette : hot numbers or "maturity of chances" (cold numbers). Actually, I don't know why betting on the numbers which have appeared right on expectation or thereabouts are ignored, because this is the "norm", but I digress.  Critics always point out that picking cold #s is gambler's fallacy, but assuming random outcomes, picking hot numbers is just as much of a fallacy. Both assume that outcomes are not independent, but if you forget this or don't understand it then both schools of thought offer apparently plausible arguments. However, they can't both be right! (but they can both be wrong).

[falkor2k15]

Coderjoe, you haven't understood hot/cold and what is happening beneath the surface. Let me try to explain again...

Excluding zero (just for these examples) we can accurately measure stats for individual bets over 1 spin:
2 dozen bet = 66% chance
1 dozen bet = 33% chance

2 dozens has a higher chance of hitting than a single dozen, but either option leads to break even due to the proportionate probabilities vs. payout odds. 33% for 2 units profit costs 1 unit; 66% for 1 unit profit costs 2 units. In the end both lead to break even.

Now let's say we want to measure stats over X spins:
RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRB

How many reds before a black will hit? Answer: different stats for different datasets. Take 1 million spins and it will you to wait for 3-4 reds before betting black; another 1 million spins will tell you to wait for 1-2 before betting black. It's unstable and unreliable.

Over x spins we can more accurately predict, say, what is the probability for X lines in X spins?
As per individual spins we will get accurate probabilities about our break even game.

Repeats act simply as a framework for easy tracking of multiple spins - aiding us with what we can expect to happen in break even game comprising uniques and repeats of varying combined probabilities and payout odds.

Without repeats
Bet 1+3, bet 1+3.... win!
Bet 1, bet 1, bet 1... lose

With repeats framework:
Bet 1, bet 1+2... win!
Bet 1+2, bet 1... lose

Both types of break even games are a collection of independent static bets, but the 2nd one tries to follow a consistent pattern of betting a changing set of numbers instead of repeating the same bet over and over.

So instead of blindly betting the same thing without knowing our risk/reward over X spins - and instead of calculating a betting plan of 10 bets beforehand - we are reacting to hot/cold on-the-fly and keeping better track of what we are doing with accurate stats all the while remaining inside a black hole of breaking even.

Playing inside a repeats framework hot and cold acts only as keyframes/markers for maintaining stable stats. Hot/cold - with it's unequal distributions - does not allow you to escape break even.

VdW also provides another framework with different keyframes/markers about our break even game of roulette where we can keep track of stats - but higher probabilities does not make a bet any better than lower probability because of the proportionate payout odds.

So how might having a repeats or VdW framework - hot/cold notwithstanding - possibly help us? I don't know for sure yet - but see my previous post:

I think there's only one way unique & repeat indicators might possibly help us:

If you play only 4 games in your lifetime and you wanted to win all of them. You could sit around waiting for 20 virtual losses on betting numbers (1s to becomes 2s) and then start betting with a progression. You would then be pretty much guaranteed to get a win within the next 5 spins, but it would involve waiting your whole life for it to happen.

But if you refer to my quadruplets topic you will see that you can arrive at a similar extreme situation by only having to wait for 8 cycles:
1 3 6 2 7 8 9 4 5.... now bet all and guaranteed a win.

You aren't winning through prediction but by waiting for an extreme situation that is a bit more predictable than X amounts of reds in a row to be followed by an (independent) black.

And you don't win on events that are more extreme than other less extreme events - you win (over a series of spins) because you have encountered the most extreme event.

It's still an incredible amount of waiting time - though not as much as 20 numbers bets. The cycles are helping you keep track of all different combined bets - real or virtual - of different ratios/payout odds.

If I get a win on order 1 I can carry over the last 8 uniques to the next game and be in the same situation still:
1 3 6 2 7 8 9 4 5.... 1

3 6 2 7 8 9 4 5 1...
I can't do that after 22 reds in a row followed by a black.

So that helps to maintain an extreme situation and reduce waiting time between games.

And since the pigeons are not equal with quadruplets, if we begin a new cycle defined by options 4-10:
6...

We are then already at another extreme situation where we could bet options 1-5 (covering 6) and guarantee a win on a unique (mostly) instead of a repeat and within the house limits.

So that's the next direction I'll be taking my testing and simulations.

Incidentally, Dyksexlic said we should have less pigeonholes than pigeons, such as SAME or DIFFERENT for a repeat, but I already tested and this doesn't help.

[Steve]

It's good to see the majority of people are reasonable, and not so gullible.

[Joe]

falkor, I don't see what your last post has to do with my post. Furthermore, some things in your post lead me to believe that you're the one who hasn't understood.

I think there's only one way unique & repeat indicators might possibly help us:

If you play only 4 games in your lifetime and you wanted to win all of them. You could sit around waiting for 20 virtual losses on betting numbers (1s to becomes 2s) and then start betting with a progression. You would then be pretty much guaranteed to get a win within the next 5 spins, but it would involve waiting your whole life for it to happen.

But if you refer to my quadruplets topic you will see that you can arrive at a similar extreme situation by only having to wait for 8 cycles:
1 3 6 2 7 8 9 4 5.... now bet all and guaranteed a win.

You aren't winning through prediction but by waiting for an extreme situation that is a bit more predictable than X amounts of reds in a row to be followed by an (independent) black.

I'm afraid this is wrong. Assuming you have random independent outcomes there are no bets which will make future outcomes even "a bit more" predictable than any other bets. Waiting for extreme events and using triggers like this doesn't have any effect at all on what comes out next.

It just goes to show that no amount of testing can help you to interpret correctly what the tests are showing you in the first place if you don't have the right understanding.

General, do you want to retract your previous comments about falkor? 

[Steve]

Waiting for extreme events and using triggers like this doesn't have any effect at all on what comes out next.

This is correct.

General, do you want to retract your previous comments about falkor? 

Well he isn't right about everything. Still he has had better reason than turbo.

[daveylibra]

once I get a hit, that session ends...I only raise bet after a hit.

sorry I don't get that. Your session has ended, how do you raise the bet?

Start out flat betting single repeaters

...and when would you stop? After 8 spins you are 36 units down.