define, hot number, once and for all

[Roulettebeater]

I'm not sure that's a simple question or a simple answer.
I've always been motivated to beat this game - to make random predictable.
To use the math I'm given by the game and use it to win.
It never was about winning money. You say you're the same - so this we have in common.
I'm not motivated to win tons of money - I "DO" though much prefer being in the casino playing over a "game" online or RX, of course.
I do go, I do win. People who know me and have gone with me will vouch for me that I've never lost money in a casino. But that's proof of nothing (really, it isn't).
When I get older (older now....sighs..) I intend to play daily since I'm literally surrounded by casinos. But even then it won't be to win shitloads of money, it will be for the satisfaction that I've beaten the game.
Online with "turbo" mode on - and 3 months.. I made 7 million.
In a real casino it would take much longer - but still could be done.
2-3k per visit would be fine, changing casinos daily and staying under the radar to some extent - it would still be work (in my book). I know AP players want to go in and hit hard and walk out with a suitcase filled with money (not literally) but that's not me.
In reality I would be doing it for entertainment - that wouldn't count as "proof" in anyone's book either.. there would be just as many reasons put out on the forums, trust me lol
"Didn't play enough spins", "got lucky", "lied" - you name it, it would never end.
My account at Golden Nugget online is still sitting there (about the only legal online I can play in NJ that has live dealer/wheel).
Between there and AC, PA I could spread my play around enough to make a nice amount over time - travel as well...but like I said above, it's not my goal in life to make a fortune doing this. When I have actual free time (what age does that happen ?) of course I'll spend more time in the casino winning.
I go once or twice every two months now - that could change later.

Hey turbo

So far I don't know your play method, you write huge text, teaching us all principles and whatever...

Roulette profi players don't neither  like to write nor read big essays, maybe I'm wrong here, anyway plz go ahead and tell us about your play method

[TurboGenius]

Roulette profi players don't neither  like to write nor read big essays

Eh. I like to explain things fully. If I don't then someone takes something I didn't say and makes it seem as if I did. Then again I never shut up when I should. lol
As far as the method, it's been explained.

[boyd30]

Eh. I like to explain things fully. If I don't then someone takes something I didn't say and makes it seem as if I did. Then again I never shut up when I should. lol
As far as the method, it's been explained.

Not exactly. You have given clues but not details. That's often how it is with these "holy grails". You get clues but then you'll have to figure it out yourself. Most of us don't do that.

[TurboGenius]

You get clues but then you'll have to figure it out yourself. Most of us don't do that.

Don't do what ? Figure things out for themselves ?
I've posted more than enough details on how it's done - why it works.
Anyone interested enough will do the work. Anyone else won't.
It's not my job to convince anyone that I'm right - but on the same note I surely don't want people to "give up" trying because a few say it's impossible.
It's not impossible and I've proven that.
I've posted almost every detail - read the forums, read my posts.
I'm not going to spell it out in detail, at some point it will come to that though I'm sure - but it won't be my doing.

[Moxy]

Steve's curiosity only piques when you openly share your findings.   But if you place a deservedly, legit value on it, he doesn't care one bit.  Strange.  Or is it?

It would definitely pique my curiosity if they put a price tag that warrants its existence.  But not him.  Free correlates to more authenticity, I guess.   Funny how that works.

[Moxy]

What does that say about his "intellectual pursuit" when free input inversely correlates to more authenticity of the typical system in the works whilst something that is aiming for a serious investor is inherently a potential sham and pretty much ignored.

Methinks, it's something else.

[cht]

I've posted almost every detail - read the forums, read my posts.

I'm not going to spell it out in detail, at some point it will come to that though I'm sure - but it won't be my doing.

[celescliff]

He meant the details are scattered and not going to explain it step by step.

[Steve]

Ok turbo so you would rather win millions in play money instead of real money. Because its just an intellectual thing for you.

I'll clarify: for me, it started because i wanted to profit. I achieved that and more. But i have other businesses that make money too. Overall if i had to choose, id prefer my other businesses to roulette. Mostly its because i don't need to train people.

Anyway lets focus.. you've given ample information to detail your system. The problem is you make incorrect statements. You contradict yourself. You don't appear to understand your mistakes.

Here's the most important one..

You talk of repeaters starting with a number hitting once, then twice... so let's look at that.

When a number hits once, twice, three times etc in any amount of spins, that and other numbers are not more or less likely to spin anytime soon. It's not my opinion. I've tested beyond thoroughly as have others. So the core of your system is based on fallacy.

Just look at one number that is "hot". You are saying that number is now more likely to remain hot.

You've said it all before. Your approach is quite clear, and its incorrect. But you say to think in terms of more spins. But what i said applies to single or groups of spins.

How big are your groups? Well probably 100 spins maximum because you win in real casinos, right?

Saying to consider more spins doesn't change anything. The truth applies to both short and long term.

[TurboGenius]

When a number hits once, twice, three times etc in any amount of spins, that and other numbers are not more or less likely to spin anytime soon. It's not my opinion. I've tested beyond thoroughly as have others. So the core of your system is based on fallacy.

You probably don't even have to test that, do you ?
Numbers will repeat. Fact
A number can't repeat unless it's shown once. Obvious fact
A number can't show twice unless it's shown once. Ditto
A number can't show three times unless it's shown two times. More Ditto
You aren't trying to magically pick a 1:37 bet anymore - like I said above,
more like 1:24 or even better...yes the payout stays 35:1. How nice.
Positive progression to maximize benefit of having the math in your favor - Common sense.
You can't lose a single unit on a number that never appears because you'd
never be betting on it. Obvious,
If any of these comments don't make sense or defy belief - I guess I can post it again.
If you can accept these as facts that they are - you can actually turn the math of the game into your favor.
Does it win every time you try ? No. Is it better than sliced bread ? Probably.
Does it win every "session" if you consider a session as I do - Yep

[cht]

Solution -

+455 <-----------------------------------------------> -79

[Steve]

You probably don't even have to test that, do you ?

Actually as I said, I've tested it thoroughly. As have mathematicians, statisticians and other gaming experts.

A number can't repeat unless it's shown once. Obvious fact

A useless fact as saying one number needs to win.

A number can't show twice unless it's shown once. Ditto
A number can't show three times unless it's shown two times. More Ditto

Yes but you cant know which will repeat, with better than 1 in 37 accuracy. Some will stay hot, some go cold. In reality, hot and cold is in your head.

You aren't trying to magically pick a 1:37 bet anymore - like I said above, more like 1:24 or even better...yes the payout stays 35:1. How nice.

You are talking about the law of a third. Again, you still don't know WHICH numbers will hit with better than 1 in 37. There is no 1 in 24. It's in your head. It's like saying red won once, so we have 1 color to choose from. Your 1 in 24 nonsense is not changing anything.

You can't lose a single unit on a number that never appears because you'd never be betting on it. Obvious,

So if the winning number is not one you're betting on, you lose nothing?

If any of these comments don't make sense or defy belief - I guess I can post it again.

They make sense (In other words, I understand you). But the problem is you're incorrect.

It shouldn't be hard to understand.

You can't "trap" numbers and bet on them. Each "hot number" will appear just as often as any "hot number" or "cold number" (easily proven with proper testing).

Let's try and simplify this further.....

If what you're saying is true, then:

1. After a number hits once, it has a higher chance of hitting again soon
2. After a number hits twice, it has a higher chance of hitting again soon
3. After a number hits three times, it has a higher chance of hitting again soon

And NONE of that is true. If you think otherwise, we can easily do some proper testing and publish results here.

You also say nonsense like "random has limits". Actually no, it has no limits. Each spin is a new possibility, with 1 in 37 chance.

And you say nonsense like 37 unique numbers will never spin in 37 spins. But actually if you checked enough spins, you'd find it happens exactly as often as ANY OTHER COMBINATION OF NUMBERS.

None of this is my opinion. It's just what the extensive testing shows. If you were testing properly too, it's what you would also find.

You say a lot that just isn't true. And you tout Parx as a valid test, without even understanding the math.

I'm sorry Turbo but I cant find a single valid point you have.

[TurboGenius]

*sighs.

I'll keep testing then until I see a number at +20 standard deviation since random has no limits. Oh wait, that will never happen in a trillion spins, or 20 trillion if that's not enough. I "have" charted this - random stays completely contained as it will.
Now is it predictable ? Yes. Is it possible to predict at a higher win rate then the payout ? Yes, keep reading my post above I suppose. There's nothing else I can say.
Random doesn't mean "anything can happen". Random means that anything contained within the possibility of what can happen - can happen.
If there's 20 spins where #10 shows each time - you can't say "well, that's normal - it's random". That would mean it's NOT random. That's why spins and wheels are tested to check for random results.
They wouldn't look at a bias defective wheel and say "Well, that's just random"
I suppose it's pointless. We can agree to disagree or disagree to agree.
And the main problem is - if you agree that at some point there will be a repeat, you already agree with me - you just don't know it yet because you're not looking in the right place. As long as there are repeats, I can't lose. In my book that makes it case-closed.

[Madi]

U cant lose on number that didnt show up but u can also lose a lot on number that show once even twice even thrice even more. The 24 number things actually is not useful in field. Ye it appears 24 number. Do i bet all. No . Then whats the point. More real field action needed rather than logic.

[TurboGenius]

So whats a hot number to you?

32 this is spin 1 is it a hot number?
10 does this become hot number as well?
31
0
19
30
16
9
31 This has repeated so i presume this must be a hot number.
23

In closing - and sorry for derailing the thread -
Notto -
32 spun first in your example.
32 had a 1 in 37 chance of appearing and showed 1 in 1 spins. It's "hot".
1:37 chance of appearing and results were 1:1
Now if we get to spin #37 and it still appeared only once, it's showing "at expected" and not "hot" nor "cold".
I hope that helps. - that's my answer to your question