T.G "Possible H/G system" with a little tweak

[TwoCatSam]

It's a shame that Turbo doesn't frequent the forums any more, I think he just tired of the endless bickering and attacks. Sound familiar? 

He was a very smart and creative guy, and it was largely his enthusiasm that got me interested in roulette. I can still vividly remember reading his posts at GG back in 2004 on the "50 Max" system he was working on. He had a way of creating suspense and excitement (a bit like our JL).

Anyway, a good example of how creative he was can be seen in his "predictor" system. Do a search at GG for it or read the attached. A couple of years ago I wrote a tracker for it, but results didn't seem to be as good as he claimed. Again, no surprise there.

OK, I've read the PDF.  His first number that he calls a predictor comes at spin 14.  Can anyone tell me why it is a predictor?  Does the score reach a certain number, like 50 or something?

He says numbers can go up in score by as much as seven.  Why less than seven except for zero.  Every number falls into the exact same categories. 

I read these things till I could scream hunting for why someone did what they did.

Sam

[flukey luke]

tried to post an example and the formatting was all screwed up.

[TwoCatSam]

2
11
9
1
6
25
32
8
10
1
30
6
2
1 (took 14 spins to get a prediction) - after this the table is always qualified.


The above is from the pdf.  Anyone got any idea why/how the 1 is qualified?

[TwoCatSam]

Any score for a number can go up 7 points from any spin based on these locations.


This again is from the PDF.

I have looked at this too long.  I find no instance where a "score" would not go up seven points.  When he uses the phrase "can go", I understand that to mean it also "cannot go" up seven points.

This, to me, is an ambiguous statement.  Anyone else see this?  If I'm wrong, please point out where.

Bayes,

Any chance of getting your tracker if you still have it?  Or what is the name if it's in downloads?

I'm off to the casino in hopes of getting a seat.

TwoCats

[Tomla021]

Can anyone explain this bet with lines? I'm a bit confused ----thats pretty normal for me

[Turner]

well...I cant believe there are people around here who havnt eat, drank and digested everything TurboGenius has written. All that is suggested in here has been talked about in his blog. He wrote all this 7 years ago.

Even Iggiv hasnt ever read TG.

link:://:.freewebs.com/turbogenius/

read this and look at everything in detail.

I did realise eventually why I was so taken in by him. its simple.

its a blog. Not a forum. No one ever questioned what he said.

That aside...he is God....in our times. ©2006 TurboGenius (well, not really)

Where is he now?

Well I have heard speculation he found the HG and sits sipping long island Iced tea on his own Island.

Looking at his compulsive obsession and bets he placed (4 numbers, $25 on each) he is a bankrupt making speeches in GA meetings.

Turner

[Turner]

Seems old TG was a bit of a buddhist too...this is very minimalistic with zero dualism.

its under "low Budget System"

link:://:.freewebs.com/turbogenius/lowbudgetsystem.htm

you will never loose a penny.

[Master_of_pockets]

I can t understand why u are attacking to TG.
He is a genuine guy whi is exploring roulette with maths-probability.

[Turner]

I can t understand why You are attacking to TG.
He is a genuine guy whi is exploring roulette with maths-probability.

You would have to be English to understand that I am in awe of TG. Its a sarcastic humour.

TG 456 streets?? awesome!!! its a work of art.

TG is why I started to take interest in Roulette

But he was so obsessive that he disappeared for 2 reasons...1.  he's dead... or 2.  he's bankrupt and in remission. you choose.

[flukey luke]

JL is the modern day 'poor man's version' of TG.

24/7 posting and still enough time to make their vast personal fortune! 

@M_O_P..... I tried your variant and it holds up well. I remember testing the original version years ago and it tanked several times for big losses. I like your idea! It deserves further studying.

[Turner]

Seems old TG was a bit of a buddhist too...this is very minimalistic with zero dualism.

its under "low Budget System"

link:://:.freewebs.com/turbogenius/lowbudgetsystem.htm

you will never lose a penny.

MOP...this was a joke. You missed it. "low budget system" you click the link, its blank. get it?

hmmmm

[Bayes]

Bayes,

Any chance of getting your tracker if you still have it?  Or what is the name if it's in downloads?

Sam, I'll have a root through my backup files on CD. Can't find it at the moment on my hard drive.
In the meantime, this thread on GG might help, or not... 

As far as I'm aware, this was the last system ever posted by Turbo. I don't think it's on his web site.

[Bayes]

"He was a very smart and creative guy... "


Okay, that's what you mean by "smart and creative".  Got it.

This thread is no different... "math but not math", ie, just no math.  (Where's the calculation of probable edge, and expected value?) "

Expected value is always -2.7%, so what's the point of calculating it?

It's not "what I mean" by smart and creative. I'm talking about a person, not a definition. But you knew that.

[iggiv]

Even Iggiv hasn't ever read TG.

link:://:.freewebs.com/turbogenius/


Turner

Why did u assume that? i read his stuff years ago. i also discussed it with some people from the forum. No winning method was published by him.

[GARNabby]

But in real life, trying to keep your spirit up betting 4,000 5,000 7,000+ continuous spins in the hole... is quite another story.

This is what "separates the men from the boys", ie, how to handle a loss.  But with a real method played in real time.

Long before such a bad/good period could, with any real likelihood, occur.  I mean, things don't just go along nicely for a while, then completely downhill.  Has to be a period in between at which things go along nicely as things turn down hill.  Where you can do something about it before "all h*ll breaks lose". 

There are indeed good UNPLAYABLE methods.  Feel free to ask Ken/Mr.J about this topic.

No, there aren't.  Or, i suspect that you would have at least made the attempt at listing one, yourself, a charter roulette-commentator on the internet.

Baccarat's John May wrote that if you wait long enough, a few hundred shoes, then sometimes the card-count indicates a tie-bet.  Wait longer, maybe then also on either the player, or banker, bets.  Of course, no one's going to wait that long, keep a perfect count of the cards even on paper, and bet $50,000 on a tie to make, on average, if you live long enough, $19 an hour.  Which casino wouldn't push back such a bet even on the first attempt?  I asked this of May, himself, but he knew of no one who had actually tried it.  (In fact, i pointed out some other flaws in his work, his interent-site, etc, only to be called a schizophrenic.  The usual response from "authoritative sounding" persons easily "found out".)
_____________________________________________________
On a related tone, (in his signature line,) Flukey writes, "One of the good things about forums like these is you just never know when another piece might come along for that big puzzle. The downside is that there will always be a few pieces missing and you have to learn to live with that."

Well, "you can't get there from here".  No one ever has, and no one ever will.

Ironically what will happen again, as did by every single one of the gambling innovations, is that this sort of stuff become "Gambling-101" fodder for the bulk of some real expert's, one with real accreditations, modestly-priced paperback.  To which the get-rich-quick crowds here, and there, will again flock, only to find out that, again, some real work and money are required to "make money" (, no surprise at the latter part of this, i hope)...  and, again, back to this sort of "drawing board".  You guys are nothing, if not "exhaustive".

I've already mentioned the value of learning to not contradict yourself.  The other important thing to look for in a theory, etc, is convergence (of what isn't a contradiction, of what isn't "changing with the weather").  Ie, the thing should become easier to explain, develop, and work with in the field.   Another reason that, if things like "roulette computers" really worked, dear Steve would have long ago come out with cheaper, simpler, but better verions of the original one.  Like, for example, big, expensive tube-laden radios became smaller, cheap solid-state ones.  Basically, the same technology in a tidier form.  (Where would we be if radios depended on an such an ever-changing electromagnetic theory?  Certainly, not a  requirement for encryption at the Tower of Babel!)

Anyway, which better clinical example of the basic gambler's manifest psychology of delusion then, as

Quote from: John Gold on January 26, 2012, 04:13:32 AM
   

"Hello little bread gobblers.
Well time for me to say adios,
Just let me say, I would even pi$$ on my own mother’s shoes before telling her the H-G.
So you sad sorry sacks of sh*t had no hope of getting it either through relay or whatever. ROFLMAO.
But me and a ‘few’ others had a good laugh at your expense the last week. Especially all the threads opening up on different forums about Parrondo’s Paradox.  Guys! You are too clueless to work any of it out and like SPIKE used to say: Never, and I repeat NEVER wise up a chump.
So long

. "

Thanks in advance, for the comedic relief, Mr. Gold.  You clever devil, you!     Hey, even that nonsense of May's was made into a successful(?) paperback.