TURBO'S REPEATERS SIMULATION.

[RouletteGhost]

Exploiting the fact that we have repeaters in every cycle sounds like a PRETTY DAMN good strategy to me

Haven’t found a flawed wheel lately I guess?

[Roulettebeater]

Exploiting the fact that we have repeaters in every cycle sounds like a PRETTY DAMN good strategy to me

Haven’t found a flawed wheel lately I guess?

A new fallacy as good as after two reds red is due.

[TurboGenius]

Where?  When?  Steve and I both have asked you repeatedly to demonstrate how the probability is affected by playing repeaters and what you feel the edge is playing them.   

Why ?
Can't do it yourself I see.
You can both ask all you like but you can also do it for yourself and see exactly what I'm talking about.
Or you can keep saying that live play, simulations, rng, actuals, game sites, RX are ALL fixed and rigged - or I haven't played enough spins - you should stick with that, it's all you're capable of doing and surely don't understand random at all.
Now a wobbly wheel - THAT you know. It's always best to stick with what you know.

[The General]

Turbo,

We've done the math, and it says that your system doesn't work.





How about demonstrating how 1+1=3 using your math magician skills for us.

[RouletteGhost]

Turbo,

We've done the math, and it says that your system doesn't work.

that statement is opinion based

"doesn't work" is different for everyone

you are in no position to say what "works" for him

you will always say that everything does not work because of the math of the house edge

we get it. we know. its a dead horse. same thing for years. go away

I see now that you are brown nosing steve, you are back..

[Steve]

Exploiting the fact that we have repeaters in every cycle sounds like a PRETTY DAMN good strategy to me

It "sounds" good, but when you do the testing you realise you are right sometimes, but wrong slightly more times. The difference leads you back to the expected 1 in 37 accuracy. Then you realize your whole elaborate approach of tracking repeaters does not at all increase accuracy of predictions. It doesn't change anything.

It can be a really short debate with some proper testing.

[Steve]

First off, this is hot numbers in cycles which is a guarantee 99% of the time. So if it works then having them say “it doesn’t work” is empty words

Testing and providing software and explanations for everyone to do their own testing is what I provided. It is not empty words. The problem is people are not doing the testing. So they talk about how turbo's approaches sound credible. Just do the testing. Even another member provided source code for further testing, which again confirmed what caleb, myself and some others are saying.

RG, I understand you have a thing against caleb. Yes he can be a c*** sometimes, we all know that. You arent being overly nice to him either. But forget that and focus on the message, and do the testing.

Secondly, you can always tell when a method has merit when it’s attacked on all fronts.

Attacked with what? Harsh words, or solid test results? By your logic, bullshit is not allowed to be attacked, or it will seem legitimate.

In the penny stock world, you know when a stock has potential when the bashers come out on the forums. Same here

Thats a very different situation. There are always people speaking both positively and negatively about stocks. Its very different to the sum of a mathematical equation, which is not based on opinion. And regarding stocks, what if the bashing is justified?

I have no reason to doubt TG and this is an obvious attack from guys who claim AP but never provide proof.

If you did the testing you'd know what we're talking about. Why not do the testing, so you know what you're defending?

I have no reason to doubt TG and this is an obvious attack from guys who claim AP but never provide proof.

I know my own experience, and I agree with almost everything caleb says - he's likely to same towards what I say. That's because we both actually know what we're talking about. If knowledge is anything to judge someone by, then at least his knowledge is solid.

The belittling in the forum of “sorry you don’t understand elementary math” is just a way to make you look stupid.

And what if it is actually true? What if basic math is actually not being understood?

People always talk about accuracy this is not basketball you don't have control of the ivory ball.

Actually there are many approaches that do predict spins with sufficient accuracy. The house edge is only small. You need only small accuracy to overcome it. It's really not that hard to achieve that on a wheel and ball. It's not rocket science. But it must be done the right way.

[RouletteGhost]

ok.

so you are saying playing repeaters or numbers that hit above expectation in a cycle cannot make you win?

but people are winning doing it?

im confused

[Winner]

Testing and providing software and explanations for everyone to do their own testing is what I provided. It is not empty words. The problem is people are not doing the testing. So they talk about how turbo's approaches sound credible. Just do the testing. Even another member provided source code for further testing, which again confirmed what caleb, myself and some others are saying.

RG, I understand you have a thing against caleb. Yes he can be a c*** sometimes, we all know that. You arent being overly nice to him either. But forget that and focus on the message, and do the testing.

Attacked with what? Harsh words, or solid test results? By your logic, bullshit is not allowed to be attacked, or it will seem legitimate.

Thats a very different situation. There are always people speaking both positively and negatively about stocks. Its very different to the sum of a mathematical equation, which is not based on opinion. And regarding stocks, what if the bashing is justified?

If you did the testing you'd know what we're talking about. Why not do the testing, so you know what you're defending?

I know my own experience, and I agree with almost everything caleb says - he's likely to same towards what I say. That's because we both actually know what we're talking about. If knowledge is anything to judge someone by, then at least his knowledge is solid.

And what if it is actually true? What if basic math is actually not being understood?

Actually there are many approaches that do predict spins with sufficient accuracy. The house edge is only small. You need only small accuracy to overcome it. It's really not that hard to achieve that on a wheel and ball. It's not rocket science. But it must be done the right way.

How about Steve and Turbo have a competion with each there own way for one month see who make more money and there would have to be a way to monitor the tru results .

[keepontryin]

steve wouldnt have a chance.........plus he would make all kinds of excuses.......my moneys on turbo

[Steve]

so you are saying playing repeaters or numbers that hit above expectation in a cycle cannot make you win?

This is very important: When you say "hit above expectation", you are talking about the PAST. But what happens in the FUTURE from that point is still 1 in 37 accuracy. So tracking repeaters doesnt work. It changes nothing.

but people are winning doing it?

If you mean on RS, because it is not an accurate simulator. For starters, the betting limits are far too wide. The effect of this is players can win larger bankrolls. For example, the same system in a real casino might reach $10,000 before tanking. On RS, it may reach $300,000 before tanking. You can demonstrate this with a simple progression like the martingale. Also read the section link:s://:.roulettephysics.com/roulette-strategy#the-illusion-of-a-winning-system

How about Steve and Turbo have a competion with each there own way for one month see who make more money and there would have to be a way to monitor the tru results .

A month is far longer than needed, to see 1 in 15 hit rate (strong edge) vs 1 in 37 (no edge). But you know you dont need to computers to beat roulette. There are other ways to achieve a better than 1 in 37 hit rate.

It shouldnt be so scary or complicated. Stop looking at the betting table. Stop looking at trends that only exist in your head. Start looking at the WHEEL and CAUSE AND EFFECT -- WHY the ball lands where it does. WHAT is predictable.

steve wouldnt have a chance.........plus he would make all kinds of excuses.......my moneys on turbo

Then you don't understand basic math. Or am I not allowed to call it as it is? You know turbo already said he couldnt compete with a computer. Hard to deny that when one gets a 125% edge and the other gets a -2.7% edge.

Besides you probably havent been around long enough to see the results of public challenges and demos I've done. But like many people, you shoot your mouth off not know anything.

[RouletteGhost]

the truth prevails

i believe turbo has the game beat without advantage play....and i hope to see him in atlantic city 

[RouletteGhost]

This is very important: When you say "hit above expectation", you are talking about the PAST. But what happens in the FUTURE from that point is still 1 in 37 accuracy. So tracking repeaters doesnt work. It changes nothing.

If you mean on RS, because it is not an accurate simulator. For starters, the betting limits are far too wide. The effect of this is players can win larger bankrolls. For example, the same system in a real casino might reach $10,000 before tanking. On RS, it may reach $300,000 before tanking. You can demonstrate this with a simple progression like the martingale. Also read the section link:s://:.roulettephysics.com/roulette-strategy#the-illusion-of-a-winning-system

A month is far longer than needed, to see 1 in 15 hit rate (strong edge) vs 1 in 37 (no edge). But you know you dont need to computers to beat roulette. There are other ways to achieve a better than 1 in 37 hit rate.

It shouldnt be so scary or complicated. Stop looking at the betting table. Stop looking at trends that only exist in your head. Start looking at the WHEEL and CAUSE AND EFFECT -- WHY the ball lands where it does. WHAT is predictable.

Then you don't understand basic math. Or am I not allowed to call it as it is? You know turbo already said he couldnt compete with a computer. Hard to deny that when one gets a 125% edge and the other gets a -2.7% edge.

Besides you probably havent been around long enough to see the results of public challenges and demos I've done. But like many people, you shoot your mouth off not know anything.

10,000 or 300,000 before tanking??? really?! we reset WAY before that!

[Steve]

RG why do you believe that when the testing clearly shows the opposite?

Discount parx. There's no doubt player has the edge there as explained before. And RS, with so many wealthy people with fun money. Isnt that a red flag?

I'm suggesting do the testing and understand what you are supporting.

[RouletteGhost]

i guess repeating numbers beating the game in the short term really bothers the computer and AP guys