@ turbo

[luckyfella]

Nobody is debating there might be systems to exploit bias, even if the player doesn't fully understand why the system works. Such a system might be a kind of hot numbers system. But the most direct approach to exploit bias is likely what APs already use.

If that's what you have been trying to say all these years with your countless repetitive tons of worded posts, then YES I can agree with that.

Speaking for myself, all I'm basically saying is somemajority approaches have no chance of working. They have also been tried and tested countless times before. Try something NEW.

YES from me.

This shall and will be your standard reference template for matters pertaining to systems play.
I hope there's no more debate into the semantics of your post.

Case close. Finally.

PS. Caleb, you're on your own now.

[Turner]

Nobody is debating there might be systems to exploit bias,

And thats what a forum is about. Please advise but dont lecture, instead, discuss, but with an open mind.
Nice one steve

[Turner]

Caleb, you're on your own now.

Gotta love a bit of the old "divide and conquer"

[luckyfella]

Gotta love a bit of the old "divide and conquer"

Divide yes conquer no.

That's how to deal with the perennial pest.

[Joe]

    A chart showing your system's success?  That's goofy.

Whats wrong with one chart? You upload only one chart showing broken wheel exist even these spin could be your home made.

Double standards. 

[Joe]

Speaking for myself, all I'm basically saying is some approaches have no chance of working. They have also been tried and tested countless times before. Try something NEW. That's the whole point of the "outside the box" board: link:s://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?board=104.0 and my suggestions at link:s://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=19212.0

I had a look at the "out of the box section". Precognition? it's a non-starter for me. You criticize what you call old methods which have been tried before and I partly agree with you, but you dismiss concepts like hot numbers and repeaters. That seems wrong because you can't deny that at least attempting to capture hot numbers is not a bad idea in principle. After all, you could say bias wheel tracking is just a way to identify hot numbers. The concept is a sound one, unlike waiting for numbers to get cold and then start betting that they'll catch up quickly. That concept deserves to be trashed, there's no logic to it whatsoever.

In fairness to Turbo, he didn't actually reveal exactly how he was picking his hot numbers, but the critics just assumed it was simple because the concept is simple. Don't confuse a concept with the application of it; a concept can be old and seem quite obvious, but its application could be quite new, complex, and "out of the box".

And by the way, you could argue that precognition has been tried many times before and nothing has come of it; it's been investigated for a very long time and there is zero scientific evidence that it works. The concept itself is contrary to all we know about physics, apart from some modern physics which is purely speculative anyway.

[DoctorSudoku]

Turner,
The above is you - and your Lord Pep -- after witnessing the embarrassing debacle at the Emptyhad yesterday.

   

[Turner]

Turner,
The above is you - and your Lord Pep -- after witnessing the embarrassing debacle at the Emptyhad yesterday.

   

See..if Caleb knew the first thing about football (thats the game where you kick the ball with your foot, not ponce around in full body armour like a girl) he would know how to get at me.

"Hey Sudoku, you'r a funny guy. Thats why I kill you last"

[Steve]

I had a look at the "out of the box section". Precognition? it's a non-starter for me.

1. It's not for everyone.
2. If you had more information, you'd see differently.
3. Where are your "new ideas"?

You criticize what you call old methods which have been tried before and I partly agree with you, but you dismiss concepts like hot numbers and repeaters

1. I criticize what ARE old methods.
2. I back up what i say with clear evidence. Hot numbers and repeaters are super-old. My own testing for them ran billions (probably more) of RNG spins to determine:

a. Do "hot numbers" in any way indicate the number is more likely to spin again anytime soon (answer is NO, except in circumstances where there's a clear bias, which did not occur with RNG)

b. Does a number that repeats immediately or within proximity become more likely to repeat anytime soon? (answer is NO).

There more to it. I've done any tests and even published software for people to test for themselves. Furthermore, many others have done many other tests.

So when I say something isn't true, I'm not saying it from opinion.

Considering the above, isn't it reasonable for me to conclude (as anyone else has who has done extensive testing), that hot numbers and repeaters are useless?

And exactly what is your counter-evidence to prove the opposite?

In fairness to Turbo, he didn't actually reveal exactly how he was picking his hot numbers, but the critics just assumed it was simple because the concept is simple.

He made many contradictions and claims that we know just aren't true. It has all been said before. I'm not arguing the possibility of someone coming up with something new. When it comes to turbo, his arguments didn't hold water. Perhaps go back and carefully understand both sides of the discussion. Then conclusion really isn't a matter of opinion once you understand both sides.

And by the way, you could argue that precognition has been tried many times before and nothing has come of it; it's been investigated for a very long time and there is zero scientific evidence that it works.

Actually there are enough positive trials of this and related phenomena that indicate it appears to be real, although is poorly understood and needs development, and further testing from those developments, to ascertain whether or not it's viable. Remember I dont believe in fairies, unless there's something to back it up. It appears you aren't particularly knowledgeable in this area. But I'm not going to debate it with you. You can draw your own conclusions.

The concept itself is contrary to all we know about physics, apart from some modern physics which is purely speculative anyway.

What we "know" about physics? Considering everything, how much about the universe do we and don't we know?

When evidence indicates something is against the laws of physics, it likely means our understanding of physics is incomplete or wrong.

Unfortunately I don't have time to explain it all to you. You can make up your mind with whatever you believe you know.

[Joe]

a. Do "hot numbers" in any way indicate the number is more likely to spin again anytime soon (answer is NO, except in circumstances where there's a clear bias, which did not occur with RNG)

b. Does a number that repeats immediately or within proximity become more likely to repeat anytime soon? (answer is NO).

There more to it. I've done any tests and even published software for people to test for themselves. Furthermore, many others have done many other tests.

So when I say something isn't true, I'm not saying it from opinion.

Considering the above, isn't it reasonable for me to conclude (as anyone else has who has done extensive testing), that hot numbers and repeaters are useless?

And exactly what is your counter-evidence to prove the opposite?

The fact is, groups of numbers do clump; it's just one of the many ways in which seemingly unpredictable random numbers are actually predictable. Systems are just attempts to exploit this predictable behaviour. The more data you collect on a variety of variables, the easier it becomes to make better predictions. These variables are not physical, they are statistical and work just as well for RNG as real wheels.
You can't just look at the number of repeaters or the hottest numbers (such as what they give you at casinos, that's nonsense) you have to be more sophisticated. My system tracks 6 statistical variables for each number which is given a ranking, updated every spin. In addition there are 3 separate rolling and overlapping spin "windows" which are cross-referenced with each other. I bet between 4-8 "hot" numbers or numbers which have the potential to become hot, based on the data. Here's a chart of my results over the last several weeks (3,472 spins) Flat betting. And this is just the beginning of my research; I haven't even tried using any ML algorithms yet.



I'm not telling you this to brag about how smart I am, but just as example of what can be done when you start to get serious and forget about the simplistic one-dimensional systems which have all been proven to be failures. There is no way simple systems can work because randomness is very complex and doesn't yield to a simple algorithm. Surely that's obvious? and yet the same tired old methods keep being rehashed over and over. So in that respect I agree with you, yes it does get frustrating. 

[luckyfella]

"....numbers that have the potential to become hot...."

People here won't believe this can be predicted

Caleb calls it time travel bot
There's this usual wall of text bla, bla, bla......
Shallow knowledge there

Good work Joe

[maestro]

There is no way simple systems can work because randomness is very complex and doesn't yield to a simple algorithm. Surely that's obvious? and yet the same tired old methods keep being rehashed over and over. So in that respect I agree with you, yes it does get frustrating. 

..keep going

[nottophammer]

Joe good old pen+paper way.
56 sets from the Generals #'s


From German spins on the forum



Random.org



Still some work to do on R.org, but 15 non-hit in spins 11-40 just keeps showing.
So yes 15 non-hit must mean 15 repeats

[wiggy]

In fairness to Turbo, he didn't actually reveal exactly how he was picking his hot numbers, but the critics just assumed it was simple because the concept is simple. Don't confuse a concept with the application of it; a concept can be old and seem quite obvious, but its application could be quite new, complex, and "out of the box".

That's true! Credit should be given where it's due. I think Turbo (through his efforts) made a few people re-evaluate 'hot numbers' using whatever new knowledge they had acquired over the past few years. Like you said in one of your most recent posts, clumping does happen. My thoughts are that you need to use precision and timing to isolate attacks playing just a few numbers. The brute force approach will work until it doesn't and then you could be even worse off than when you started.

[wiggy]

Here is an example of what I am getting at with my above post.

Let's use Pryanka's cycles on the dozens as an example:

Dozen 2 is having a continuous run on 's' = same.

16
24
13
20
22
20 (repeat)
24 (repeat)


Assume that you just bet the last 4 numbers and so you would have hit on the 20 and 24.

To be honest, this is pretty basic, however it's a good place to start.