@ steve

[Steve]

Again I dont know for sure exactly what happened. Again mods dont read everything. Generally when something is reported, we'll have a look at whatever specifically was complained about and decide from there what to do. It could be just a gentle reminder for everyone to chill, or something else.

Why are you wasting both of our time on this?

Let's just leave it at if I see something that goes beyond mere free speech and is an attack on a person, I'll be very specific and let you know. Its the same for any member.

Anyway for now at least Colbster isnt a mod anymore. He hasnt responded explaining why he moderated things I dont think should have been mdoerated. Specifically locking your thread and deleting other content. I think perhaps because he hasnt modded here as long as the others that he wasnt fully aware of our style of moderation.

[Madi]

Andre's complaint was that people were getting on his case and following him. You can have your say, but there's a point where you leave it be.

When he say
The fact is
This system win more than lose while everyone knows its clear failure and has been tested long before.

Ofcourse people should get him when he say this word “fact”.

Which is misleading.

Fact and bullshit two different things.

And what i can see from u steve , everytime when turbo comment  u come behind to argue as u believe that he is misleading people with fallacy. U should  have  stopped actually  long before. But u cant

[Madi]

Anyway for now at least Colbster isnt a mod anymore. He hasnt responded explaining why he moderated things I dont think should have been mdoerated. Specifically locking your thread and deleting other content. I think perhaps because he hasnt modded here as long as the others that he wasnt fully aware of our style of moderation.

Anyway i am done. Thanks very much. Bye

[Steve]

Madi I already gave examples I saw, from Denzi I think. I already said I dont see a valid reason why your thread was locked. You're beating off a dead horse.

And I never called Turbo a dumbass. I criticize his approach and logic (with clear explanations of the problems), not his personality.

[Madi]

Well i was doing the same critisize the system. If the mod is out i am ok . Not into argument anymore.

[Colbster]

Sorry I missed the fireworks.  I don't have the time to live on here anymore, as I have started two more businesses since I became a moderator.  I didn't realize I wasn't a moderator anymore until I just read it here on this thread, but I had just sent a note to Steve asking to be removed as a moderator.  I don't want to waste the precious time I get on here dealing with temper tantrums and irreconcilable egos.  I'm here for the roulette, not the drama.  As I replied in your other thread, it was simply a mistake on my part.  You need to chill, dude.  Not everything is about you.  This was just a goof and I'm happy to take the heat for being the guy that made it.  I'm sorry.

[cht]

Madi I already gave examples I saw, from Denzi I think. I already said I dont see a valid reason why your thread was locked. You're beating off a dead horse.

And I never called Turbo a dumbass. I criticize his approach and logic (with clear explanations of the problems), not his personality.

steve,

You are mostly right with your criticism.

I agree not everything TG posted is math correct.

I agree TG has made contradictory statements.

BUT, TG has given this forum a revolutionary way to look at systems play and specifically at repeaters.

I followed the parts that's revolutionary, sounded like rookish bombastic claims but stayed on the side of the path that is math correct.

Guess what I found ?

A long term viable winning system play that's based on proper logic that stayed within the bounds of math aka holy grail. Not only that it expanded the boundaries of how to look at this roulette game the possibilities are yet unknown.

Based on this fact despite your apprehension towards Parx, as an extension of what I now know I find no reason why TG 's Parx result does not reflect his repeaters gameplay.

Do I say then you are wrong ?

No. You missed the missing part when you come to your conclusions. I can't fault you if you don't know what you don't know.

What I write here is another claim.

Do I want to back it up ?

No, you asked for proof it won't happen. You believe what you want to believe. It's in the realm of belief for everyone since we are dealing with stuff outside of normal knowledge and that remains that way.

I'm no cheerleader, neither will I be a party to false info or claims. Incomplete info is false info.

In TG's case, I stand on the side with complete info that's is math correct.

[Steve]

BUT, TG has given this forum a revolutionary way to look at systems play and specifically at repeaters.

How is it revolutionary? The clues he has given have been enough to piece together what he's saying, and so far everything points towards his approach being misunderstandings and repackaged fallacy.

I followed the parts that's revolutionary, sounded like rookish bombastic claims but stayed on the side of the path that is math correct.

Take one example. From what he says, a number that hits is more likely to hit next. Then he says it isnt. Then he says it is. Then he says the odds dont change. Then he says he beats it with math. The odds arent the math. It's all over the place with contradictions.

Based on this fact despite your apprehension towards Parx, as an extension of what I now know I find no reason why TG 's Parx result does not reflect his repeaters gameplay.

There are huge reasons why Parx is very different. I explained the math in detail before but basically you are almost guaranteed to keep winning if you play relatively often. Its exactly like a casino that gives you free money for showing up.

Here's where the ultimate problem is..... when i ask for a single valid principle to validate the claims, I get clues, which are backwards and contradictory. But if I explain the problem, all I get in return is "you just dont know better". So we end up in a stalemate.

In the end though, I dont buy his claim that he hasnt made a fortune with it for real because he doesnt want to..... but he'll gladly waste weeks playing with play money to show everyone how good his system is. Who has the HG but prefers winning with play money? There are just red flags everywhere even if we ignore the logic and math of his claims.

[cht]

How is it revolutionary? The clues he has given have been enough to piece together what he's saying, and so far everything points towards his approach being misunderstandings and repackaged fallacy.

Take one example. From what he says, a number that hits is more likely to hit next. Then he says it isnt. Then he says it is. Then he says the odds dont change. Then he says he beats it with math. The odds arent the math. It's all over the place with contradictions.

There are huge reasons why Parx is very different. I explained the math in detail before but basically you are almost guaranteed to keep winning if you play relatively often. Its exactly like a casino that gives you free money for showing up.

Here's where the ultimate problem is..... when i ask for a single valid principle to validate the claims, I get clues, which are backwards and contradictory. But if I explain the problem, all I get in return is "you just dont know better". So we end up in a stalemate.

In the end though, I dont buy his claim that he hasnt made a fortune with it for real because he doesnt want to..... but he'll gladly waste weeks playing with play money to show everyone how good his system is. Who has the HG but prefers winning with play money? There are just red flags everywhere even if we ignore the logic and math of his claims.

I don't disagree with how you come to your conclusions. Nothing wrong at all.

"you just dont know better"

My guess is he is referring to the parts that he has not shared on forums.

That last bolded para. I agree.

Why should he bother to post so much repeatedly over so many years in so many threads about some thing he has no intention to reveal ?

I'm off to make real money at b&m casino. I've said my part. Take it which way you want.

Big thank you steve for this forum that's helped me attain my goal.

[Steve]

I agree he shouldn't have to disclose anything. If I had the HG, I wouldn't reveal it myself. But I don't think that's what is happening.

I think he really believed the system worked, based on parx results. And he tried to help people. but as it is now, he realized he made a mistake and doesnt want to appear wrong.

Do you believe he would rather spend weeks on a rigged game with play money than winning real money? That's just one point. There are many others like the when he is asked to explain a contradiction, we get the same response like "you dont know better and I'm not telling".
Maybe thats true. But every indication is its as I think it is.

Anyway if i'm wrong, I hope you and him win lots really.

[Steve]

Nevermind I misread what you wrote. So we can leave it I really hope i'm wrong and you both win lots.

[TurboGenius]

There are huge reasons why Parx is very different. I explained the math in detail before but basically you are almost guaranteed to keep winning if you play relatively often. Its exactly like a casino that gives you free money for showing up.

This is one of the "going around in circles" points.
A) I go to the casino and bring 2k for a banrkoll
B) I log into Parx and receive a daily log-in bonus of 2k (example) to play with.
There is no difference whatsoever.
No bonus points or credits (or even slot machine wins or competition wins, etc)
are counted towards the leaderboard - only profit - yet I climbed it over months of play
and ranked at the top and stayed there until I decided not to.
With millions in winnings - if it were truly fixed - there is NO way I could have
lost it, no matter how hard I tried. If something is "rigged", it doesn't know my
intentions. When I wanted to win, I won - when I wanted to lose, I lost.
A leaderboard would also be useless in a rigged game - everyone who wanted to
would rank in the top 10 every week without effort. This isn't the case, feel free
to have a go at it lol.
I have every spin, nothing shows up as irregular when plugged into RX so the spins
can be analyzed - no problem with the rng not being realistic.
So bringing a bankroll vs the site giving someone a bankroll is equal.
The game is a fair game and the RNG isn't "rigged or fixed".
So there's no point in trying to say that anyone who wants to can win - surely this isn't the case, everyone is free to try and do the same.
There should be at least 5 posters who can go there and try and then report back "Yes, I'm ranked #1 and it was easy !" but that won't happen.
So you're free to discount the results as being rigged or in favor of the player (which is odd because they "sell" credits (and not cheap I might add) - so it's in their interest for people to lose, and most people do lose - because it's no different than being in the casino with your own bankroll that you brought. More money doesn't magically appear if you lose lol.
You can come back the next day and try again - just like you can go to the casino and try again tomorrow with a fresh bankroll.
But you won't rank on the leaderboard - you'll need to show profit. That 2k from yesterday you lost makes you -2k, etc etc. It's not like you magically start fresh every time you try.
Is there ways to maybe rank high once ? lol. You can take your 3k log in points and bet it all on #20 every day until you win ? Guess what - you'll lose on average 36 out of 37 tries and maybe win once on average - you won't rank on the board, you're balance will be negative at the house edge. (the math).
Now if you hit 20 a few times in a row you might get on the leaderboard for the week once... who knows. You can't show this climbing every week and do it consistently - of course not. So a big win might place you once, it won't show the results that I posted over months of play.

[DoctorSudoku]

I think he really believed the system worked, based on parx results. And he tried to help people. but as it is now, he realized he made a mistake and doesnt want to appear wrong.

Do you believe he would rather spend weeks on a rigged game with play money than winning real money? That's just one point.

There are many others like the when he is asked to explain a contradiction, we get the same response like "you dont know better and I'm not telling".

Steve,
Yes, it is interesting how the above phenomenon (that you have characterized fairly above) appears over and over again on roulette forums, isn't it?

[TurboGenius]

the above phenomenon

Sadly, it's no phenomenon - it's called "you don't believe anything works, you don't even spend the time or energy to try to figure it out, you're mad because the answer isn't being handed to you" etc etc.
There's not much else to say if someone refuses to understand the answer to a problem.
You can blame the person telling you the answer all day, but if you're too lazy to actually do the problem yourself - the answer means nothing. Sad.
It's incredibly easy to find contradictions when you don't understand what's going on. Pay attention or don't.. I suspect it's "don't".

[DoctorSudoku]

Sadly, it's no phenomenon - it's called "you don't believe anything works, you don't even spend the time or energy to try to figure it out, you're mad because the answer isn't being handed to you" etc etc.
There's not much else to say if someone refuses to understand the answer to a problem.
You can blame the person telling you the answer all day, but if you're too lazy to actually do the problem yourself - the answer means nothing. Sad.
It's incredibly easy to find contradictions when you don't understand what's going on. Pay attention or don't.. I suspect it's "don't".

I was commenting on the phenomenon of people playing the baiting game that we find on roulette forums over and over again -- too bad you are taking it as a personal attack against you and getting all emotional about it.