TURBO'S REPEATERS SIMULATION.

[Steve]

also i dont care if you think you have the hg. Many players think they have it too. I care that you are misleading and harming people. But when it comes to simple tests and logic that prove your claims wtong, you spurt rubbish like “you guys just dont know better”.

For example, if repeaters changed the odds, then in a 37 spin cycle, a player could just cover repeaters and beat the house edge. But testing clearly proves repeaters change nothing. The odds are the same. Its not a debate. Anyone can test this.

[TurboGenius]

You want it explained in details that go beyond what I'm willing to do.
(for the obvious reasons)
I've provided everything needed. I've provided proof via simulations and live play.
Anyone can replicate my results.
To you I have provided nothing, to you I have provided no proof - any simulation
is fixed (other than the one where you can easily see how I play). Therefore "Rigged" will be the only answer to whatever I use for proof. I've done it on various sites using various type of RNG - and can be done against actuals of course, it won't matter.
Then it is "not enough spins".
My live play has been perfectly in line with simulations but that won't matter either - I'm lying, misleading, etc etc.
It is truly a waste of time (for me) to keep explaining it - you are confident it's all nonsense so it's best to leave it at that. Others have gotten it.
My replying to each point with specifics just plays the game you and a few others want me to play - until in the end I'd reveal each step and calculation in detail.
If you think it's nonsense, rigged, fixed, not enough spins, lies, deception, etc - why on earth would I keep replying and posting ? Like I said, I'll let my live play results speak for themselves - you're then left with "not enough spins" to explain my results - but that's fine... there's no finish line in the future where it would be seen as proof and I don't plan to perform for anyone just to amuse them - while they continue to profess to everyone that it's all nonsense. But.. irrelevant to me - I'll still win and be winning for as long as I want.

[TurboGenius]

For example, if repeaters changed the odds, then in a 37 spin cycle, a player could just cover repeaters and beat the house edge. But testing clearly proves repeaters change nothing.

Please read what I said
I just fired up RX - here's what happened : (as I'm making this post)
Spins 1-37 (euro wheel)
1 unit every number for every spin = -37 units = net% -2.70 (house edge)
1 unit every number only once it appears = +100 units = net% +21.01 (not house edge)
1 unit every number only once it repeats = -1 unit = net% -0.69 (not house edge)
+21.01% player's edge and -0.69% house edge are NOT equal to -2.70% house edge.

How can it be any more clear that the test sample where every number is played ends at -2.70% as it should -
playing a number once it shows ended at +21.01% player's edge.

You can argue that the math is the same - it's not. Repeaters change nothing ?
I tried.

[RouletteGhost]

Is Caleb also......STEVE?!

[Steve]

You want it explained in details that go beyond what I'm willing to do.

No, you ALREADY gave enough details to know your approach doesn't work. I already explained it in detail, but you wont respond to that.

(for the obvious reasons)

No its not a conspiracy to get you to give me your HG. That's the excuse you often give to avoid addressing key points which invalidate your claims. Again you already gave enough information.

I've provided everything needed. I've provided proof via simulations and live play.

Live play? Where? Was it more than 20 spins?

And you mean Parx, mathematically rigged although you still dont understand it? Or RS, with the ridiculous table limits and unknown rng source. The only worthwhile test I know you've done was MPR and it was a clear loss.

Therefore "Rigged" will be the only answer to whatever I use for proof. I've done it on various sites using various type of RNG - and can be done against actuals of course, it won't matter.

So when you test on a rigged game, we should ignore that and accept your test as valid??

Then it is "not enough spins".

Including parx and RS you have probably demonstrate enough spins to be statistically relevant, although not conclusive. A more relevant problem is where you are testing, as explained before.

It is truly a waste of time (for me) to keep explaining it - you are confident it's all nonsense so it's best to leave it at that.

Yes and AGAIN you dance around critical points. See my other post. Why dance around? You keep hiding behind "gee I already told you, you're just not getting it" instead of addressing what matters.

If you think it's nonsense, rigged, fixed, not enough spins, lies, deception, etc - why on earth would I keep replying and posting ?

Could be many reasons. Avoiding looking "wrong", ego, who knows.

For as long as you keep misleading people and avoiding the important points, you'll get flak.

[Steve]

Is Caleb also......STEVE?!

No, just two different people with proper logic and understanding. We are not unique. But proper understanding is rare on forums.

And don't call me Shirley.

[RouletteGhost]

i enjoy betting strategies knowing full well that they conquer no edge....thats why i work for a living

[Steve]

That's fine RG, but turbo claims to have the Hg and that he never loses. And he has a few clueless people he's misleading. It's a very different case to casual play.

[RouletteGhost]

TG

what prevents you from sharing your strategy?

I am not asking you to.....but what prevents you

why is it a big deal if people know how you play? obviously it wont shut the casinos down...why so secretive

[Steve]

How can it be any more clear that the test sample where every number is played ends at -2.70% as it should -
playing a number once it shows ended at +21.01% player's edge.

You can argue that the math is the same - it's not. Repeaters change nothing ?
I tried.

You know I could bet red and win 5 spins in a row. That's a big edge too. But it's not how you calculate edge.

Exactly how did you calculate 21.01% edge?

If repeaters changed the odds, then you could just bet on repeaters in a 37 spin cycle and win with a 21.01% edge. Let's make it simpler.... you said to bet on repeaters, and would be crazy to not bet on a number that repeated 3 times. So try that - and bet on that number for 37 spins.

And do that perhaps 1,000 times (when you see a qualified repeater). You'll find that repeater wont spin any more frequently than another number. You'll still get 1 in 37. Nothing has changed.

Anyone can test this easily.

From this simple point, your logic falls flat.

[jekhb76]

How can it be any more clear that the test sample where every number is played ends at -2.70% as it should -
playing a number once it shows ended at +21.01% player's edge.

You can argue that the math is the same - it's not. Repeaters change nothing ?
I tried.

@Turbo,
I've sended you a few PM's. 

[Steve]

When they have no understanding, are incapable of logical thought, and believe what they find convenient:

[Steve]

Jekh, imagine someone told you 1 + 1 = 42. Then you checked on a calculator.... just to make sure.

You then showed the person the result. But they ignore it, and still insist you are wrong. You then show them one apple, then another apple. And say "see, together it makes 2". But you get ignored again. The person just seems set in their beliefs, and unwilling to listen to reason.

It is just like trying to reason with someone who believes the Earth is flat. At some point, you have to conclude this person is a lost cause. They are just not listening or thinking. And if they are thinking, their understanding of reality is so poor you start to wonder what their problem is.

It doesnt matter how clear you make your proof, they just don't get it.

That's very much like what's happening here. It's not an insult. It is not an opinion. The difference is it involves multiple people, and the math is a tiny bit more complicated (not by much).

I suggest rather than blindly follow, test properly for yourself. Then the discussion is very easily settled. If you dont understand the purpose of the tests, you need to go back and understand first.

[Steve]

Also once my level of understanding was so poor too. But once i decided I wanted the truth, no matter how inconvenient, I very quickly learned.

Do you want truth, or perception of convenience? Which will benefit you more?

[ZERO]

wait...
""Would love to see FLAT EARTH TURBO VS ROUND EARTH STEVE going man on man on the same table,""
I never said anything about the earth being flat. I said we see it as round because we are on it and traveling with it at the same speed. To a "traveler" heading "towards" earth around the speed of light - it would be flat (15 meters thick). This is done by calculations and not my opinion, it's the truth. To that observer the earth would be flat yes. To "us" on it - it is not.
And Steve (with a computer) would probably win. I still consider that cheating and until such time you can place the device on the table with the casino knowing full well what it is - (they never will allow this), then it's cheating. I use nothing other than what the wheel gives me - "random" and "math". It's that easy. I couldn't compete with a secret hidden computer that could predict where the ball would land. In a fair game - I would easily win.
By fair game I mean "random" and not pieced together sets of spins and calling it random when it's not.

Hey Turbo, apologies but I did not imply that you said the earth was flat, I was just making reference to Steve`s post about the flat earthers and who he was referring to.

All I want is world peace and a winning roulette system...