Turbo Denzie or is it Denzie Turbo

[Bayes]

The X,Y trigger and dependency comes from the fact that each playing section/group is dependent on each other: If a street repeats then a line has a good chance of also repeating because they share common numbers.

Yes there is a dependency between groups of course, but only with regard to a single outcome. Obviously if a street repeats then the line which contains the street must also repeat, but I'm talking about dependency between successive spins. Why should the street repeat in the first place? because it has been repeating often? because it hasn't repeated in the last Y spins? You can come up with all kinds of "reasons" why it should repeat based on complex events or statistics. You could even redesign the layout and generate more stats based on this. I'm not denying there are hot numbers and repeaters but only that it's possible to predict them on the basis of past spins without other information.

[maestro]

long time no see Bayes..i wanted to ask you if you dont mind,have ever had a look on a thing multi arm bandit thats kind of applet on wolfram demonstration....do you think should work on roulette..thanks

[Steve]

Denzie, I'm really trying to help. I spend spare time trying to give accurate advice, which is mostly ignored. And as you have done, sometimes I get attacked.

I even released free software so people see facts. But it isn't being used.

- So what's next ?

Maybe stop wasting time with what we know fails. Try something new.

I gave some suggestions in the outside the box area

- Buy that Nintendo?

I don't think its your thing.

- Seriously not sure what you try to do here but your not a roulette miracle.

Never claimed to be. But I do understand primary school math. And when my systems were nonsense like repeaters, I quickly learned because i actually wanted the truth, convenient or not.

What am i trying to do? Imagine you saw someone walking of a cliff, and you told then to watch their step. Then they say "wtf you are trying to do"

Denzie in your signature, what are u trying to do? Ive been in that loop before too. Im telling you that you don't have it figured out yet. Im not being arrogant about it. I've been where you are before.

- This game gets beaten every day. And without any bs electronics. So how about that ?

For every 10 winners, there are perhaps 20 losers. That's what you call "beaten"?

- Are those cats lucky each day ?

Its like the multiplayer roulette game. Some players win, most lose. Some players are lucky for longer, but the longer they play, the closer they get to 0.97 win rate.

- Or is it possible you don't know everything there is to know about this game?

Of course not. I at least know the basics.

- And each session always have hot numbers.

See what i wrote earlier. What you call hot numbers is just normal probability.

- And in case that rare event would come I wouldn't lose nothing.

Systems based on rare events fail because the odds of failure at any point don't change.

- So to conclude. ... You can't win with repeaters and I can. (Every session played and tested in rx  and available in wiesbaden )

I hope you continue to win. Many times before i thought i had it figured out. Then i learned harsh reality. I went through the cycle of disappointment many times until i fully understood why the systems eventually tanked.

[Bayes]

BTW, for years Turbo was an advocate of cold numbers and "furthest back". Take a look at the archived posts on GG. Ok, so we all (well, some maybe) learn from our mistakes, but it's worth mentioning that during that time he claimed that he never lost, just as he does now!

For me, that doesn't inspire much confidence in Turbo's assessment of what's good and what isn't when it comes to roulette systems. It just seems as though whatever system he comes up with, it's a winner, regardless of whether it's based on hot or cold numbers, singles, even chances, whatever. 

I do like the guy though, and at least he does try to demonstrate that his systems work by posting stats and charts, even if they are misleading and in my opinion, cherry-picked for forum readers.

[Steve]

I agree bayes. He makes contradictory and incorrect statements.

He publishes misleading information too, although it mostly appears to be unintentional.

I agree he's not a bad guy.  It looks like he's simply mistaken again. Cold numbers are just as bad as hot numbers.

He doesn't deserve the flak. Other people make mistakes too.

But this whole crap with parx is stupid. The math behind parx is not the same. Real casinos don't give you free $100,000 to play with. I previously explained parx math to explain why parx ranks are meaningless.

[Steve]

Anyone serious about roulette needs to take pride and emotion out of it. The facts are actually quite sinple.

But if you just like to dabble for fun, nobody cares. It only becomes an issue when misleading and potentially harmful advice are given to people who do take roulette seriously. That's why this site has the warning at the top. People following bad advice lost money and complained to me. Sure they need to take responsibility, but i still have some responsibility to at least point people in a beneficial direction. Not to ram truth down throats.. just to give people both sides to consider.

[cht]

Problem is people need to pay a high price with unbearable pain b4 they're prepared to listen(even after that not all). They don't want their hope to evaporate since it means they got nothing staring at them, that's the thing they can't possibly accept this end of the road thing when it looks so promising yet nothing.

So telling is nothing not going to achieve anything, change nothing but ironically it's the right thing to do.

[Steve]

its all part of the process. I think we all go through the same stages. For me the super stubborn and ignorant stage took about 5 years. Retrospectively, I have been an ignorant ass much of my life. I know I will never know everything, and will still make mistakes. But i also need to be realistic and call a spade a spade. We are all not so different. Just different stages.

[Steve]

The hardest part is that knowing right now, on some level, you are as stupid now as you were 10 or 20 years ago. Compared to all knowledge, we all know nothing. But we think right now we understand. We dont.

We never fully "know" anything. So our understanding relies on reasonable testing (observation). But you need understanding to know what reasonable testing is.

Personally, roulette led me to be unexpected areas. Conparatively, the financial aspect is secondary and irrelevant. Mostly roulette is a hobby for me.

[cht]

When we come to the point that we realise we know nothing even with all that 'knowledge' collected over the years of stubborn stupidity it means we have learnt a little something - very little. That includes we know nothing and that's a good place to start. And we always remain in this place of knowing nothing, almost.

So we seek the tiniest of tiny something to know that hopefully might mean something. I said 'hopefully might' because even with all that painstaking historical data testing doing it right it might just turn out absolute wrong - roulette listens to nothing, just does it's thing all day long without a care.

The stupid stubbornness stage, the twin terror, goes out the window, aha that's something we've gained  - not nothing now strangely still nothing.

[falkor2k15]

Yes there is a dependency between groups of course, but only with regard to a single outcome. Obviously if a street repeats then the line which contains the street must also repeat, but I'm talking about dependency between successive spins. Why should the street repeat in the first place? because it has been repeating often? because it hasn't repeated in the last Y spins? You can come up with all kinds of "reasons" why it should repeat based on complex events or statistics. You could even redesign the layout and generate more stats based on this. I'm not denying there are hot numbers and repeaters but only that it's possible to predict them on the basis of past spins without other information.

The repeat of the street depends on the uniques that came before it. If there's already been one appearance of a street then it only needs one more appearance to repeat. And in terms of successive spins, if a line repeats early then we expect the street to repeat early; if the line repeats late then we expect the street to repeat late (or is it vice-versa?) - so there is more to that dependency than first meets the eye. Again, as I stated elsewhere: we cannot predict the next spin - but we can predict things about any arrangement of numbers over multiple spins.

[denzie]

As I said....Well Tested.   

[Bayes]

we cannot predict the next spin - but we can predict things about any arrangement of numbers over multiple spins.

Sure we can, that's what probability does. But the casino doesn't pay us for making correct predictions about what the next sequence of spins will be; we have to bet on one spin at a time.  And we can't make our predictions any better by looking (only) at what has already passed. This is a surprisingly hard lesson to learn even though it's obvious on one level. Turbo says "random has limits", and also admits that roulette outcomes are independent. That's a contradiction because if random really did have limits then the spins wouldn't be independent.

However, it really doesn't do any harm to believe that what you're doing has merit, as long as you don't start risking too much because you "can't lose".  The problem is that people tend to draw conclusions about the success of their systems prematurely. A few hundred or thousand spins of testing isn't nearly enough for systems which only bet on a few numbers.

[falkor2k15]

Sure we can, that's what probability does. But the casino doesn't pay us for making correct predictions about what the next sequence of spins will be; we have to bet on one spin at a time.  And we can't make our predictions any better by looking (only) at what has already passed. This is a surprisingly hard lesson to learn even though it's obvious on one level. Turbo says "random has limits", and also admits that roulette outcomes are independent. That's a contradiction because if random really did have limits then the spins wouldn't be independent.

However, it really doesn't do any harm to believe that what you're doing has merit, as long as you don't start risking too much because you "can't lose".  The problem is that people tend to draw conclusions about the success of their systems prematurely. A few hundred or thousand spins of testing isn't nearly enough for systems which only bet on a few numbers.

The casino doesn't pay for sequences, but we can bet for combinations as one event, and Roulette can even be made a 72 number game by stitching bets across events. So the problem isn't about numbers or spins - it's the unfair payout odds - and how to bet in different dimensions other than on a single spin basis (or "capture more wins or spins" as quoted previously).

Random does have limits as stated and backed up countless times on this forum, and when you have multiple events working within overlapping limits ("short and finite"; sounds familiar?) then current events become dependent on past events, i.e. a sequence/combination of spins becomes dependent on a previous sequence/combinations of spins - particularly if one is wrapped up in the other. And all streams are dependent on each other over successive spins, including official and self-defined, so at least one parallel stream is required - but see topic "Funny Sequences", as there exists another phenomenon that I would describe as the "Butterfly effect" - straight from Chaos Theory and Fractals.

[nottophammer]

Sure we can, that's what probability does. But the casino doesn't pay us for making correct predictions about what the next sequence of spins will be; we have to bet on one spin at a time. And we can't make our predictions any better by looking (only) at what has already passed.  This is a surprisingly hard lesson to learn even though it's obvious on one level. Turbo says "random has limits", and also admits that roulette outcomes are independent. That's a contradiction because if random really did have limits then the spins wouldn't be independent.

However, it really doesn't do any harm to believe that what you're doing has merit, as long as you don't start risking too much because you "can't lose".  The problem is that people tend to draw conclusions about the success of their systems prematurely. A few hundred or thousand spins of testing isn't nearly enough for systems which only bet on a few numbers.

Says who