define, hot number, once and for all

[TurboGenius]

The parx results are not at all proof of anything. The winnings you achieved are LIKELY for anyone who played the right amount of time. So why on Earth would you use parx as validation if you are mathematically assured of a huge profit even with random bets?

That's why I also used RX spins, Random.org spins along with Parx online - and my live play results. But under all the various circumstances - the results are the same. So there's that.
I don't use Parx for validation - but people can clearly see my rank and perhaps "listen" a little more to what I'm saying, think a little more about the possibility that this game can be beaten - that the big bad scary house edge is actually a small problem to deal with.. and then go from there. Or they can choose to listen to "It's all rigged and impossible, the payout doesn't equal the odds of winning - you can't win at this game".
That's their choice, people will do what they want.

[jefra]

@Steve;
1.) Why are you so much against Turbo's Parx test??   Come on mate, you can try too and then we Will see is you can be same successful as Turbo was!

2.) Can you mathematicaly prove to world, that you can beat roulette with VB (roulette computer)? 


@Turbo;
It is very unfair to say that spins from Parx, RX and RNG give exactly same results!!  What if you showed ONLY the best (or let average 200 spins results)?   BUT I am sure that can be also catastrophical 200 spins where you have no chance to win. (I today sent you 180 "hard" spins. Can you win on them too??)

[ozon]

Hi Maestro
I used to  using the RX in your way.
Always bet 3 numbers at the top of the rankings with the highest STD.
I've noticed that almost always at some point we are profit, but we never know how big and when exactly.
I played a flat bet, sometimes I had a pretty big drowdawn befor plus.
  And here my question is what are the best options to use this bet selection.
If we know that at some point we should be positive.
But it is safer to stop sessions on any plus or set a fixed target profit?
And what about stoploss, do you use it?

[maestro]

Hi Maestro
I used to  using the RX in your way....

ozon i do not use that kind of play was just a go for fun to see how it goes..

[Steve]

1.) Why are you so much against Turbo's Parx test??   Come on mate, you can try too and then we Will see is you can be same successful as Turbo was!

Because the Parx math is nothing like real casino math. Parx guarantees an ever-increasing bankroll.
Is this is what real casinos are like?

I could spend days and days on parx like turbo, but why? To prove a point with fake money? Already i explained the math. I dont have the time to mess around with play money to prove something that is already known.

Can you mathematicaly prove to world, that you can beat roulette with VB (roulette computer)? 

No doubt. Unquestionably and easily, I do it very often.

The thing to understand about statistics is it is never, never 100% certainty. Like with a biased wheel... you could find a wheel where zero wins significantly more than other numbers. Does this guarantee there is a bias on zero? No.

So what you can do is check even more spins. And if you still see zero wins more than other numbers. Does it guarantee there is a bias? NO.

All getting "more data" does is increase the probability that there's genuine bias.

Now take bias one step further, and observe spins very closely. You might notice that when the ball hits the pockets, there's a high pitched "ping" sound. But when the ball hits the zero pocket, there's a bit of a pop or thud sound. If you notice this a few times, it may indicate the green plastic in the pocket is bubbling up. This absorbs more of the impact of the ball, so the ball bounces less. And if the ball bounces less, then zero will become bias.

My point? Well in this case, we would have both:

1. Statistical data, and enough of it to be relevant (but not 100% proof of bias), AND
2. Observation of the CAUSE of a bias.

Put those together, and you still dont have 100% certainty. But you damn well have a very, very high degree of certainty.

NEVER will you have 100% certainty with any investment. There is always risk. Do you need 100% certainty? No.

Are you 100% certain you arent in a dream, right now? How can you be 100% certain?

ALL INVESTMENTS ARE CALCULATED RISK. It's the same in roulette or any advantage play situation.

So where am I going with this?

Firstly, advantage play is not just bare statistics with nothing else. I've explained one case with bias analysis. With roulette computers, the analysis is even more blatant because you can get predictions based on where the ball will first hit the rotor. What are the chances of hitting the right number within 5 pockets, about 80% of the time over 60 spins? Again it's never 100% proof, but add in things like hearing the beep when the ball is predicted to fall. There is a lot of additional information - additional to plain statistics - to back up assessment of accuracy.

Now with testing a typical roulette system, all you have is PROFIT AND LOSS. There is no signficant backup data. So all you can do is test and test and test. And the more you test, the more assured you are your system works or fails. 1000 spins is not enough. 10,000 is getting more realistic, but still its no guarantee the system actually works. Ive seen systems even profit after 10,000 spins, then tank shortly after. I've even seen systems get lucky over 100,000 spins only to eventually tank.

And finally with turbo's system, I've already explained why his approach wont work. And as usually I get the typical eggheaded comments like I must be totally against it because i'm selling something. Actually the truth is simpler. And I already explained it. I explained the math of Parex, and why anyone could be practically guaranteed an ever-increasing bankroll.

(I today sent you 180 "hard" spins. Can you win on them too??)

That's nowhere near enough spins to tell you anything useful. Everyone needs to understand short term tests are useless without backup information.

[Steve]

On the note of system testing, almost everyone tests the whole system in something like an online casino, with tests done spin by spin by spin.

The problems with that are:

1. You could waste a day testing, or even weeks, and still it will NOT tell you if your system works (or is luck)

2. You are taking a big risk with your bankroll

So a simpler way is just test the working principle of your system that is supposed to change the odds.

For example, maybe your system tracks RBRBRB then you bet R. Ok so then you should use RX or other automated software to check millions of spins for the sequence RBRBRB R

Then if the odds are better than random, you might have something. Do the testing in a click of a button, instead of wasting weeks of your life, and money.

[Steve]

And if anyone needs convincing about how shorm team tests are meaningless, just run a random RX system for 500 spins a few times.

Sometimes you profit, sometimes you lose.
... but most of the time, you lose.

Take it one step further. Say you won almost every time. So then test the system a few times, over perhaps 1,000 spins this time. You may find sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. But with more spins (1000 per test), you might find you end up losing more times than you did with 500 spin tests. It's a sign your system doesn't work.

For people that says I just dont like systems because i sell computers, how about this.... Test properly, then see if the system actually works, or I'm just full of shit.

Or should I lie and tell fairytales about what does and doesn't actually work, just so I look neutral?

I dont have loyalty to one method of beating roulette over another. It's not loyalty anyway. I just have an aversion to bullshit. And I believe in proper testing and logic.

[jefra]

Steve;

You almost all said very well, except one thing disturb me. You said that a system player must test a system through thousands and thousands (if not million) of spins. WHY? Even 500 spins is too much, because mostly players play 100-200 spins in one piece in casinos.

You said very good that you use signals from RC which warn you if all match to saved timings or something changed. These signals mostly come on end of spin, after you already made a wager, but after all, these signals still give you enough informations "in a long run". You can have exactly same ball speed 5th ball rev till end but a final distance still can variate for +70 pockets. BUT this is still OK because as you said you count on 50, 60 or 80% certainty that a ball will stop in your betting area.

They say that the best indicator for a working system is "if longer you play- more you win". YES, this is true BUT VB player CAN stop playing and move to other table or return next time if something changed, BUT system player MUST continue to play, no matter if he noticed changes and started to lossing. We have two different criterions, and this is not fair.

OK, maybe we both think too much on systems based on outside bets and table bets, and here I 100% agree with you. But with above I more thought on Turbo, Mr.J and maybe some other individuals ;-) because their play does not differ so much from VB players. A system or RC are only PART of winning way, other part is knowledge, personal experiences,... which differ from player to player.

End of the end, Steve, we both know that testing is one, but playing in live can be total different    for most players.


Turbo is one unique guy and I like him very much, because he is one of very few an honest, fair and trustworth people in gambing community. Maybe he has only two little mistakes, one is that he can be stuborn sometimes, but other mistake seem for me as huge, because he is enormous ignorant of email replies, and this very much disturb me 

[Madi]

When i see the design of his system i feel amazed. From percentage of unit laying  on mat for every bet to per spin earning . If no cheating in roulette he ll be winner for sure.

[TurboGenius]

Steve, I'm not sure that you're argument or justification about Parx holds up or makes sense. I'll explain - you can either understand what I'm saying or not.

Take your local casino.
Player 1 goes in with $300.00 for a bankroll and plays a $5.00 minimum table.
Let's assume he wins some, loses some - leaves 5 hours later broke. Fair enough.
Player 2 goes in with $30,000.00 bankroll and plays the same table.
He wins some, loses some - leaves 5 hours later down $300.00 and takes his
remaining $29,700.00 home with him for the next trip.

Now If I'm reading what you say right - player 2 has a huge advantage over player 1 because he has a much larger bankroll and can "play longer". That doesn't change the math considering they are using the same table with the same limits.
Parx calculates the leaderboard based on profits, not based on bankroll (as it should be). So player 1 who might start with $300 and walk away with $2,000 will have $1,700 in profit - of course he can now use the $2,000 to continue playing and maybe rank higher next week (this is what I did there). Eventually he would get to #1 - this has nothing to do with whatever bonus points/credits they give that player.
Granted player 2 can play "longer" thanks to having a bigger bankroll - but it won't matter because with the same table limits - they will both end broke eventually according to the nay-sayers. There's no advantage in being player 2 other than he can play longer before going broke.
I'm pretty sure you think that they will both lose everything anyway - it's just how long it takes being based on their bankroll ?
Even if a player had a unlimited bankroll - they wouldn't be able to place on the leader board unless they could make more in profits than anyone else.
The more they play - the larger they bet - the faster they'll lose (according to you).
(and since anti system people believe there's no way to beat the math - everyone, regardless of what they have for a bankroll will lose).
Aside from buying in there to get credits (I've never done) - it's a equal playing field on that site. You get a log-in bonus once per day (ranges from almost nothing to 3k per day after a month). We also got 50k today for it being Thanksgiving (very generous I'd say).
So everyone is on the same equal playing field - and regardless of their bankroll everyone is doomed to lose (correct ?).
While I'm using my method/system/ whatever you want to call it - and rank constantly high on the board - no credit given for me lol. I understand that I suppose. It would mean having to say that something works.
Player 1 above left broke, Player 2 left with $29,700 but it doesn't matter - they both lost $300.00 - they haven't changed the math of the game regardless of their bankroll. If you can't win then having a bigger bankroll won't matter a bit, you just won't lose it all as fast as the player with a small bankroll.
So saying the math is rigged because everyone has equal starting playing amounts - they are ranked based on profits only (not bankroll) makes no sense. It's absolutely fair. No player is given more bonus credits than anyone else.
I charted (they don't do this at the site) my bankroll vs my total profits - you can clearly see that aside from the initial bankroll I started with - any bonus credits I got played no part whatsoever in my profit balance.
And I liked the "I don't have time" comment - I said that would be coming.
I probably have less "free time" than anyone on the forums (trust me). But 10-15 minutes per day is enough with the turbo-spin option to do what I need to do to keep myself in the top 10.
I agree with you fully that no one can win without changing the math of the game - the thing is - it can be changed. I gave one quick example in another post.
You can tell me that a number has a 1:37 chance of appearing, but we can test and know that 24 numbers appear in 37 spins on average. This already throws a wrench in the works for the "math" people.

As for needing to test 200 million spins ? Nonsense. It's math.
If I gave you a set of dice and a method you could easily calculate how many throws it would take to see every possible outcome. The same goes for a specific method with roulette. If I give you the specifics, you would see that it can be proven as true or false just by using math, you wouldn't need 200 or 500 million spins. There is only a few possible outcomes that can happen (wink). 300 spins is more than enough.

[cht]

I think I 'get it' what tg is talking about. His play logic is quite simple to test.....

[maestro]

funny how can go flat in plus for over 6000 spins and goes feck...

[Steve]

You almost all said very well, except one thing disturb me. You said that a system player must test a system through thousands and thousands (if not million) of spins. WHY? Even 500 spins is too much, because mostly players play 100-200 spins in one piece in casinos.

500 spins is nowhere near too much. You not wanting to play that many spins doesnt change reality. No casino or statistician would consider 500 spins statistically relevant. Again if you need proof, test a random system for 500 spins. Keep doing a 500 spins test and you see sometimes you've won, sometimes you've lost. Are the winning sessions proof the system works?

500 spins not being enough is not a matter of opinion. Simply do enough testing for yourself and see.

YES, this is true BUT VB player CAN stop playing and move to other table or return next time if something changed, BUT system player MUST continue to play, no matter if he noticed changes and started to lossing. We have two different criterions, and this is not fair.

The wheel doesnt care what you think is fair.

But with above I more thought on Turbo, Mr.J and maybe some other individuals ;-) because their play does not differ so much from VB players.

They have nothing like VB approaches.

And really I have nothing against Turbo. But either he is wrong and doesn't know it, or is misleading people with some degree of awareness. I think it's more a case of him not understanding his mistake, but perhaps both. For example, he still doesnt appear to understand the parx math, or his numerous contradictions. And I find it difficult to believe that by now, he would have either made a fortune, or have realized his approach doesnt work.

[Andre Chass]

Bet hot or bet random!

In the end of the day the results are similar. The difference is that you keep a little more in the game...

[Steve]

Turbo, i'm not wrong about the math. Anyone who gets bankroll bonuses has a big advantage over players that don't get bonuses. There are multiple ways a player with more money has an advantage over other players.

Even if two players made the same size bets, the player with more money is more likely to rank higher. Consider the below chart. The red line is where one player (with less bankroll) goes bust. The other player keeps playing and wins back some losses, and ranks higher.



There's an easy way to settle this. Just test properly in conditions where you don't receive massive cash bonuses.

And I liked the "I don't have time" comment - I said that would be coming.

Really, it's not an excuse. I just don't have the time to waste on play money to prove a point that is self-evident if you understand the math.

Remember Fossell had some time, and he ranked high too.

And last time I looked, people playing SLOT MACHINES were ranking higher than you. Does it mean they all have the holy grail of slot machines, or there's another reason for them winning millions and ranking high?

As for needing to test 200 million spins ? Nonsense. It's math.

It's math? Testing 200 million spins is nonsense? You dont know you're saying the math is irrelevant and more thorough testing is not as conclusive.

I probably have less "free time" than anyone on the forums (trust me).

Anyone who has spare time to play for pretend money has spare time.

You can tell me that a number has a 1:37 chance of appearing, but we can test and know that 24 numbers appear in 37 spins on average. This already throws a wrench in the works for the "math" people.

Its not throwing a wrench anywhere. You are just not understanding it. We also know from a coin toss, each side will increasingly flip a more equal amount. It is impossible to use this to change the odds.

If I gave you a set of dice and a method you could easily calculate how many throws it would take to see every possible outcome.

Every possible outcome? Actually 200 million would be hugely inadequate for that.

We are really going in circles. We can just leave it at some of the players at Parx have the slot machine holy grail. And you have the roulette holy grail. You are all winning millions in play money, but too busy to make real money. And you deliberately lost all the parx money, because.