VIDEO 4: Roulette Strategy Secrets | Mistakes to AVOID

[winforus]

Please explain the direct change in tactics right after the 50 wins. What's that bloodhound nose of yours tell you?

There was no change in tactics. To be exact, you have reached your 50 wins on June 6th.  You were still "reading randmoness" and using progression. In fact, you bragged about reaching top #20 and said that your plan is to take it to #1 on Roulette Simulator. Here are your quotes:

I've already planned to take it to number 1. I'll be at 50,000 soon enough. That means that I can double my bets and still stay inside my comfort zone and bankroll.  I'm still trying to figure that out. I like to double up on bet attacking. I also like to have 20 bets in reserve in order to descend in a session. So it looks like it's around 600 for bets and 1200 for attacking bets that are doubled up for 25,000 in bankroll. When I get to 50,000 I can double those amounts and still remain viable. Just trying to figure out the right bankroll to bet ratio. I don't stop at 7 net losses. I stop at 21 net losses. I have never lost three 7 net loss sessions in a row. That is where I get my 21.

Top 20

Then you lost, and said that you lost on purpose. These are the contradictions that I am talking about, it's beyond hilarious.

[winforus]

How long is a session? How many spins?

In his first 50 sessions, there was a total of 1103 spins.

Here is how some of his winning sessions looked like (taken directly from his games):

link:s://prnt.sc/t9f498

link:s://prnt.sc/t9f4za

Going down, and recovering with progression for a small profit, and then ending the session in plus. Is this Advantage Play method? Looks like any typical progression system that wins in short term sometimes, but eventually loses.

[Steeefan2014]

Really??? Deleting my posts???

I did not insulted anyone, I just stated the truth, the way a lot of persons here see it, including myself! And, in a funny way!

I thought this was a free public forum! But I guess is too full of princesses that don't like the truth...

No need to delete my posts anymore. I will do that for you!

Heil Steve!

[Steve]

Steefan, you were trolling. Your deleted post was just counterproductive agitation.

By your logic, nobody can agree with me, without ulterior motives. 

I did not insulted anyone

Yes you clearly did.

I just stated the truth

No, it was purely your opinion.

Anyway I'm not discussing using it further.

[Steve]

Gizmo, You've said previously you don't bet on the future, and aren't "predicting" spins. But you'd have to be predicting something, otherwise your next bets are based on nothing.

It appears you're looking at trends with things like Reds, Blacks, Highs, Lows etc.

When we put these things together, it looks like you're betting on the formation of patterns like:

RRBRR
RRRRB
BBBBR etc

Like they MUST happen or something. But that's as pointless as saying the ball MUST fall.

What you MUST do to beat roulette is win more frequently than random bets.

You cant prove your theories by specifying a small fragment of spins that suit your theory. Much more testing is needed.

When I asked for something I can verify, I was asking specifically for a principle that people can verify may be used to increase accuracy. But then you'll obviously say you wont release secrets. In that case, we're back to square one - you're making un-provable claims, and expect people to just believe you, and follow your clues.

That's the same stalemate that happened with Turbo.

So what's left is other ways for you to prove your claims. One way, albeit not a great way, is win play money on RS or MPR and become #1.

It appears you planned to be #1, but then later you lost. Now you claim you meant to lose just to mess with people's heads.



When Turbo was winning on MPR, he was obviously loving it because he played regularly. Until he began to lose. Then he started criticizing MPR and making excuses like I might steal his system.

.... So he went to RS where the admin can see a perfect video recording of his secret sessions. Later he lost after a bug in RS was fixed. And he played on Parx where you're mathematically guaranteed to profit. Nobody with a brain would believe Turbo.

It's a similar situation with you. I'm not meaning to offend you. I'm not saying you're lying, but I am saying I dont find your claims credible. If this was about someone else, would you believe it?

Having said that, is there something more specific you can provide to prove your claims? Or are we at the stalemate I expected?

[Azim]

Steve, I'll even give up the most important feature of a computer based strategy for attacking that sequence. Your computer app must stop on any loss of two in a row.  If a swarm of two in a row losses occur the software must have the capacity to not try for a while. In fact it must test the waters for a change from that swarm. It must find a way to get into a swarm of wins configuration. The human brain can do this easily. Not so easy to write all that code in software. But it is doable. There is your testable principle. It's just specifically and strategically targeting the effectiveness conditions for singles on the weak side.

gizmotron2, where else have you said something like the above quote?  Its the first time I have read in all your posts.

Is there something else you want to add to prove that your theory is right? Any specific number or range to go after?

Is there a specific count, that you normally go after and stop when you reach a certain destination in both directions?

[Steve]

Your computer app must stop on any loss of two in a row.  If a swarm of two in a row losses occur the software must have the capacity to not try for a while. In fact it must test the waters for a change from that swarm. It must find a way to get into a swarm of wins configuration.

This isnt exactly an algorithm. It's not specific enough.

[Azim]

This isnt exactly an algorithm. It's not specific enough.

Totally agree that's why I asked him what I did, not sure if he will answer me.

[gizmotron2]

This isnt exactly an algorithm. It's not specific enough.

It's completely specific. If you lose two in a row. That is specific. If it is part of a swarm of two losses in a row. That is specific. So to make that for sure if it aggregates downward as apposed to flattening, like evening out, then it must be stopped until it begins to enter a stronger than flat toward the winning side. A human would see it as grinding upward or grinding downward. You must teach the computer to see this condition as it only relates to finding singles on the weak side.  I don't really care if you are not good enough to program it. I'm good enough because I know how to do it as a human. I can't expect a person to program it if they don't already know how to do it in real live play.

[gizmotron2]

Totally agree that's why I asked him what I did, not sure if he will answer me.

Since I was talking to Steve I answered him.  You have another need that I can't answer. Whatever I say you argue and say that it is not good enough. So I see you as a dysfunctioning algorithm that demands others to fix it. Not my job to satisfy you.

[Steve]

So to make that for sure if it aggregates downward as apposed to flattening, like evening out, then it must be stopped until it begins to enter a stronger than flat toward the winning side

Define "aggregates downward" and "flattening", and "when it stops" and "stronger than flat" and "winning sides".

grinding upward or grinding downward

When I think of "grinding", I'm probably thinking of the wrong thing. Please define it clearly.

I don't really care if you are not good enough to program it

Nobody can program with vague algorithms like these.

If a human can do the logic, it can be coded. But you arent giving clear logic. It's very vague.

I can't expect a person to program it if they don't already know how to do it in real live play.

Yes but no human can understand what you've said without clear definitions.

[gizmotron2]

Yes but no human can understand what you've said without clear definitions.

I said people are easier to program. Do you really think that a quick description here will replace what I teach in stages regarding how to use the effectiveness states? You have not tried to learn my method thru the effort that I went to in order to teach it. But you want a full rendition of my teaching process all just to satisfy you. Tell you what. You go over there. Not just read everything in the thread but also practice real sessions and develop your own win to loss ratio. Use the 3 / 7 session method. After you have developed your own understanding of the effectiveness states then come back and ask me questions. 

[gizmotron2]

Define "aggregates downward" and "flattening", and "when it stops" and "stronger than flat" and "winning sides".

try to visualize the process and your progress as if it were a graph like a stock market moving average chart. Relate to it that way.

[gizmotron2]

When I think of "grinding", I'm probably thinking of the wrong thing. Please define it clearly.

Slow transitions up or down as apposed to huge swings in a moving averages chart. Once you keep data like this you can relate to it and then program it.

[gizmotron2]

Nobody can program with vague algorithms like these.

If a human can do the logic, it can be coded. But you arent giving clear logic. It's very vague.

I created graph charts and images for every set in my playing charts and put them on display here somewhere. These where charts for the exact same sequence of spins. I did this to show the moving averages for every set as it would be visualized for flat betting on each set to win. My problem is that I'm not getting followed here. I don't expect anyone who has their own winning method to waste they time on my information as it is an acquired skill that requires much work.