Does Turbo have the HG and NEVER LOSES?

[Steve]

I'd like to see how many people believe Turbo has the HG system and NEVER LOSES at roulette. This is primarily to determine if he should be moderated. Moderation is only done in extreme cases, like when a member deliberately misleads members for self-serving purposes (ie ego). It degrades the forum which is why "baiting" is not permitted, as explained in the forum rules. The forum is for sharing, not stringing members along with vague clues.

Before you vote, carefully consider the summary below. If you cant be bothered reading it, don't vote. Remember the summary below is a combination of events, and what Turbo himself said. You decide for yourself if you believe him.

DONT REPLY ON THIS THREAD. WE DON'T NEED ANOTHER TOPIC ABOUT IT. ANY REPLIES WILL BE REMOVED NO MATTER WHAT THEY ARE. IF YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY, SAY IT AT link:s://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=18348.0


1. Turbo was initially winning on MPR (rouletteplayers.org). When he started to lose, he stopped playing at MPR. Then he started playing at Parxonline, a different free roulette site. Initially he didn’t give reasons for changing.


2. He ranked high on the Parx leaderboard, and started boasting that he had the HG. He started various threads giving vague clues like "3 comes after 2, 4 comes after 3".


3. The more experienced members highlighted the faults in his logic, to which he responded with more vague claims. He is allowed to keep secrets. The problem is what he did release was mathematically verifiable as incorrect (fact, not opinion). For example, he claims to win only when spins are random. Random means 1 in 37 accuracy, so the odds of winning don't change. And with the payout unchanging at 35-1, it is mathematically impossible to profit in the long term. He claims otherwise. More about this is explained below. He made various contradictory and inaccurate statements about roulette, math and gambling in general.


4. Eventually Turbo lost all his winnings at Parx. He claimed he did it intentionally, to prove that he could. He claims he announced his intention before losing, but there's no way to verify this because leaderboard rankings are updated once a week. So he could have lost, then made his announcement before the leaderboard was updated, to make it appear he planned to lose.


5. Parxonline is not a realistic roulette simulator, and its math makes it possible for anyone to rank high even with a bad system. Here's how it's done:

Each day you login consecutively (without missing days), you can an increasingly large daily login bonus. After many days, you get the maximum daily bonus of is $3000/day.

To rank high, the player needs to log in every day for the maximum bonus. Then you'll have a larger bankroll than other players. So you can bet higher, win more, and then rank higher on the leaderboard. And if you rank high on the leaderboard, you get huge amounts of bonus money (around $100,000). Additionally, the betting limits are very broad and unrealistic. This means you can use a progression that rarely loses.

So ultimately anyone can rank high in Parx. All it takes is:

- Logging in every day to get the maximum bonus, so you can out-bet other players.

- Taking advantage of the broad and unrealistic betting limits. So a progression allows you to keep winning for longer than real casino roulette. (although this part isn't needed, because of the bonuses)

- Playing often, but not too much. Playing too much will eventually make you lose, as he found. You need only play just enough to out-rank other players, without blowing your bankroll. Then you get another huge bonus and repeat the cycle.


6. Next Turbo moved to RS, another online roulette game. One obvious flaw in the game is it has very broad table betting limits. Real casinos don’t use such limits because it would be too easy for players to win large amounts.

Additionally, RS video-records your sessions. You can make the video recordings public or private. Turbo made his private, but of course the game admin can easily see the recordings.

The RS game shows bankroll trend. Turbo said his system uses "aggressive progression". If this was the case, there would be clearly pronounced ups and downs in his bankroll trend. But instead we see a gradual increase. This clearly shows his progression is mild. It appears clearly his progression aims to increase his bankroll before the start of a betting cycle, then reset. This is the best way to exploit broad and unrealistic table limits.



TURBO'S CLAIMS


* When forced to admin Parx was not a realistic simulator, he claimed it was fair because.... "anyone could get the same bonuses if they wanted". But he neglects the fact most people don’t religiously login every day for the maximum bonus. Now again he claims Parx and RS are "realistic simulators".


* Turbo had two accounts at MPR (rouletteplayers.org) - he said one for serious play, and the other for testing. Both accounts had an overall LOSS. He claims his serious account (where he played thousands of spins) never used his best system.


* Turbo claims he "doesn't bet past spins", but he bets on "hot numbers" before they become hot. Remember, it is verifiable fact that a "hot number" or "cold number" will not spin any more than any other number in the near future (except on biased wheels). So then he's claiming to predict the future, on random/unpredictable spins.


* Turbo claimed he doesn't need to change the odds. But later said he does change the odds because he doesn't bet on cold numbers. His logic is on average, around 24 numbers will appear in 37 spins. He appears to neglect you don't know WHICH numbers will repeat.


* In response to the question of how he knows which numbers will be "hot", he said "3 comes after 2, 4 comes after 3". He is referring to some numbers "becoming hot" in a 37 spin cycle. And in particular some numbers becoming "hotter than others".


* He claims he beats any game and "never loses" provided the results are RANDOM.

The problem with this is random means 1 in 37 accuracy. It means there is no pattern, past spins are meaningless and have no relation to future spins. So with random spins, ANY method of bet selection is useless. And in such a case, you cant sustain winnings because the payout (35-1) will always be unfair. In other words, his bet selection will win 1 in 37 times with each independent bet, but he'll only be paid 35-1.


Basically he is saying he wins, only when spins are completely unpredictable.


* When asked why he avoided MPR, he eventually claimed he was worried I would steal his system. Remember that

- He played RS instead, where the admin video-records his sessions (an even greater risk)

- All MPR does is log wins and payouts, to check for bugs. Every casino does this, but as far as I know only RS video-records sessions.


* Turbo still denies Parx and RS are in any way unrealistic simulators - even despite the betting limits no real casino has. He claims they are more realistic than MPR, where the win rate for all players combined is almost exactly what we expect with a house edge of -2.7%, which is exactly what we expect in real casinos.


* Turbo's latest reasoning for avoiding MPR is that he claims it has "bugs". The bugs he's referring to are minor and insignificant, such as sometimes spins will appear faster than every 30 seconds. He never complained about such an issue when he was winning on MPR. But now he claims this is why he avoids MPR.

Another of his apparent reasons for avoiding MPR is that it is "less realistic than Parx and RS". Proof this is nonsense is before the recently leaderboard reset on MPR, we can combine the overall results from all players and see the house edge is -2.7%, just as it is in a real casino. Already on the latest leaderboard we can see the same situation, validating MPR as a realistic simulator.

But on Parx, there are regularly players who win millions. Usually the slot machine players win the most. Turbo's reasoning is that the betting limits are higher for slot machines. But Turbo contradicted himself by claiming table limits were irrelevant, and that a system will either win or lose.


* Turbo contradicted himself and claimed his system greatly increases the player's edge because out of 37 spins, he knows only about 24 separate numbers will spin. But this cannot at all increase the player's edge because you don’t know what number appeared until it appeared. And once it has appeared, there's still a 1 in 37 chance it will appear again. Remember he said he needs "random" (1 in 37) to win.


* Turbo says his system is based on "hot numbers". He eventually changed his explanations to claiming he bet on the hot numbers before they appeared. This is not possible because in a random game, the previous spins have no connection to future spins. Anyone can verify this with proper testing.


* Turbo claims "math beats a math game". But the math of random is you cannot change the odds, no matter what you do. Random means random. If you cant change the odds of 1 in 37, then you've changed nothing. Multiple bets are not in any way connected - they're just a series of independent bets, each with set odds and payouts.


* Turbo claimed a wheel bias player would make the same bets as him. This means he would bet on "past numbers" that were "hot". This doesnt work unless the wheel is biased. He later changed his mind.


* Turbo claims I'm just discrediting his system only because I want to sell roulette computers, and that I claim roulette computers is the only way to beat roulette. This is false. I never said computers are the only way. In fact I've explained other ways, and just explained you can only win by changing the odds to be better than random. But it isnt possible in a random game. My comments about Turbo's system have nothing to do with my technology. 99.999% of professionals who understand why "repeaters systems" don't work have nothing to do with roulette computers. That's why casinos freely give you data on "hot numbers" - because countless professionals have tested exhaustively and know hot or cold numbers are meaningless. The display of hit numbers preys on gullible and inexperienced players. My preferred methods have nothing to do with the logic I explain about his claims. His defensive claims are more a personal attack against me, rather than careful consideration of the verifiable information I present. In other words, he's attacking the messenger, not the message.


* When asked why he isnt out making millions, Turbo claimed its because money doesn't motivate him. So instead of winning real money, he spends a lot of time winning "fun money" on unrealistic games like Parx and RS, and trying to convince others on forums that his HG system "never loses".


* Another of Turbo's apparent reasons for avoiding MPR is he doesn't trust the spins. The spins are from real wheels, at least 300 consecutive spins from a wheel, before the spin database uses spins from another wheel. He says even if the spins are random, you cant stitch spins from wheels together because "random and random is not random". I disagree, because 1 in 37 is 1 in 37 no matter how you look at it. It's just another of Turbo's excuses for avoiding MPR. To prove I didnt rig spins, I published the spin database in an encrypted file, and released the password after all spins were complete. So anyone could verify the game is fair, and doesn't deliberately make players lose. It works the same way as real roulette with the house edge. Nevertheless, now MPR uses random spins from random.org. He still avoids MPR.


* When I and other members explained why his approach wont work, we provided examples, the math, and even software with testing procedures to verify Turbo's approach cannot work on a realistic roulette game. Most notably, even after a number has spun 1,2,3,4 or however many times in however many spins, this number is no more likely to spin next or anytime soon than any other number. In other words, it's still 1 in 37. This is something anyone can easily test with software I supplied, or other software.

If you believe Turbo's logic, 10 reds in a row changes the odds of red spinning again sometime soon. But any experienced or educated person knows this to be false.


* Turbo says to ignore people saying it's "gamblers fallacy", and that the term is actually a conspiracy to stop players from finding methods that work…. like "repeaters".


* Turbo says "random has limits". But this is just not true. Random has no limits, just like numbers have no limits.


* Turbo said himself he is a "sociopath". This includes:

Compulsive lying

Narcissism (The symptoms of narcissistic personality disorder include: grandiose sense of importance, preoccupation with unlimited success, belief that one is special and unique, exploitative of others, lack of empathy, arrogance, and jealousy of others.)

Manipulation (Naturally, a sociopath is going to attempt to play puppet master with the people in their lives. This is likely when many people realize they’re dealing with a sociopath; when it becomes clear that the individual in question is trying to pull the strings and manipulate those around them to get what they want. Again, they think they’ll get away with it due to their narcissism, and don’t care about the consequences.)

While this doesn't address the logic of his "never lose system", it does explain his motives. Again he said himself he's a sociopath.



Did I miss anything? I'm sure there's lots. I've just taken the time to summarize it to help prevent going in circles. We can refer back to this post to save everyone time.

Ultimately every now and then, a new self-professed guru comes along and misleads people. The experienced members quickly expose them. But the less experienced members (followers) win a few times with the guru's advice, and fight to defend their guru. Then a lot of repetitive arguments occur. The experienced players know the logic and faults, and the inexperienced members keep fighting because they don’t know better. The sociopath enjoys the attention.

Eventually the followers, maybe a year later, realize the self-professed guru misled them. If the followers only tested properly, their loss of time and money could have been avoided.

The cycle repeats again with a different self-professed guru. Often it is the same person using a different username. A prime example is Charles Edward Hampshire. When I asked him privately why he misled people, he claimed it was because he "liked to make people think". In his mind, he was benefiting people. In reality, he was deluded and misleading people.

These "gurus" never come out and admit to misleading people. Why would they? Forget the "messengers" and what you think their motives are, and focus on what is being said, and the logic.

[Steve]

I'll make something clear. The summary I've provided is of Turbo's actual claims. That includes his repeated claim that he "never loses". For example:

Say it's not possible, tell others it's not possible - it's a bit silly really since I'm not losing and cannot lose. (as long as the results are random).

.. as long as the results are "random" 

With the proper progression you can't lose.

Perhaps I should have provided references to his claims so you know I haven't fabricated them. But they're all in the thread at link:s://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=18348.0 so you can see for yourself.

One of the purposes of the poll was to determine if turbo still has a following. His agenda is self-serving for ego, whether or not some people see it. The self-professed guru is not a new thing. From the poll result, I would know a suitable course of action for the forum's benefit. Although the clear majority of people know better, as expected there are still a few gullible people. That's enough of a following. I'm guessing people who actually believe turbo's claims didn't read his claims, and haven't been following the situation. Either that or they're particularly slow learners. If you decide to read it and change your vote, you can.

So as with the other self-professed gurus, its just a matter of time until the gullible people learn better. As I said before, it's not my money.