Roulette I've seen a new absurd claim that the gambler's fallacy isn't.....

There are fanbois who curse him now.

There are plenty who hate him for not revealing his secret sauce.

There are few who make money, stop posting.

Believe him or not, up to you.

Don't expect Turbo to write the exact math or show his bets.

Don't waste time testing old stuff that don't work. We all know that.

 

Denzie is only one of two documented fails. Hey, did you ever figure out that secret? I see that you now know how to program. Good for you.

I hope that you are not looking at the Reading Randomness thread. It tells why I moved away from double dozens. And it's free. That's my latest scam. Tell people really how to beat the casino and offer it all in the full wide open so that they can find out for themselves. And it's all free. It includes software that helps learn, because it includes full disclosed telemetry.

I guess we will just hate each other forever. So where you a $200 student or a $19.95 student? I'm kind of hoping you were in the first batch. You know all that time I spent programming Turbo's hot number stuff with you? I still have the application titled Denzie's method. How much of a waste of my time was that?

 

I'm not about to go further into this with you. I've said what needed to be said. And i don't hate you . Lol. Why would i hate a forumjunkie at the other side of the world? Pffff naaaaaah. Even Nathan is more annoying then you .

It might be a waste of time for you...not for me.

Cheers

 

From what you wrote today with those 4th and 5th steps you discovered something that you suggest works. It's too late to remove them. Those words are stuck here forever. I might just think about what you are saying. This Turbo hot number stuff is actually intriguing. You want it to work. It's funny too. You can't get a third repeat unless it has already been a second repeat.

 

LOL

 

Yes, It's not difficult!

Turbo's theories are interesting, but incomplete ... perhaps deliberately.

For example, the probability distribution of the sortie of numbers (LoT) is subject to periods of deviation (positive / negative) with respect to expectations, but presents a great statistical regularity that has always fascinated all scholars. Many techniques have been tried to harness this regularity, but it seems that no one has ever made known a possible solution.

It is the perspective from which you look at things that can make them change.

The cycle of 37 spins is the standard one for thinking about the sortie of numbers, as there are 37 elements in French roulette. At any point in this cycle we will have theoretical expectations from which any rejects, for example if we stop at 24 rotations, it is plausible to expect an average of 7 repetitions and therefore 17 distinct numbers and any rejects do not make this information usable. But stopping at different points in the cycle can create a link between groups of numbers and a consequent dependence where the single sorties are independent. The statistical analysis of these different bonds can provide trigger points to anticipate the differences in the LoT (probability distribution) in order to provide the results above the house edge.
In a nutshell, any point in the cycle of 37 rotations is linked to its previous ones because it has very specific characteristics. This is the basic principle for gaining an advantage.

Goodforum, Raf

 

I think in all that one thing is very important - when I write, I often write something which is kidding others and I think, that similarly do many...and you see what from that happens , so we are simply not enough serious here ...

 

Good description of gaining an edge.

The difficulty is to identify the link.

No one has written anything about the nature and form of this link. Or ever will.

IF this link does exist it wins naturally.

And casino security will never know nothing about this bet. Lucky bets.

 

I already did with all the others he never responds, so why should I bother with this one? For your sake i'm willing to program it for you.

You see the point is with all the graphs and statistics. Turbo always shows nice look graphs when things go your way. But when there is a lot of choppiness and you need to change to a different hot number. Those spins were you did not have a win need to go somewhere, right? If you calculate all those spins in the equation it is 1:37 in total not 1:24 like Turbo said it would be.

Of course he never responded...

 

Not just for my sake, many people would like to see it imo.

If you're a good coder(which im not) im happy to tell you the better way to play it...that would be part 3. ( part 4 is easy to play but You're missing on more HOTTER numbers ). Im even happy to pay for it. Only 1 rule....You can share the results but not the complete method ....

You'll find me at [email protected]
Cheers

 

@Denzie any clues as to how to look at part 3 differently? To fit it into part 4?

And kinda sucks ka2 would get a free lunch lol. I'm sure turbo could code it..

 

Heck with it: I might as well throw a profound notion into the mix. Ken, aka Mr J, has added a nice wrinkle into the possibilities. I wrote a sim that tracks every number and lists the interval between hits. I posted the telemetry for that sim here during one of the hot number discussions. And this is the conclusion of that research. You can have the very hottest number identified in 300 spins and still get an interval of from 50 to 70 in that number while still getting as much as 18 to 24 hits in that 300 spins.

Now you burn around 3 or 4 repeats discovering it. At least I did in just looking at a chart of all the outcomes. But I wanted to know the nature of the hottest numbers.

So why bring up Ken? Like Turbo or Denzie you must go digging back into their posting history to find that golden nugget. This is fun when you have the secret and won't tell. Anyone interested?

Anyway, Ken postulated a way to come off of hot numbers yet still keep them in the interested column. I thought it was elegant. In fact I wish I had thought of it. In view of my latest discovery of the common interval between first hits from the cold group I decided that Turbo is right to suggest that going after the hot repeats is better. That's what Ken does too.

Before I tried double dozens or Even Chance bets I went after the hottest 3 numbers in 300 spins as my first adventure into Reading Randomness. That was around 2005 when I first posted that idea. But I started research on that back in 1995. I was programming back then using Shockwave, an internet plug-in based on a scripting language version of X-talk. Ken came up with a great way to come off of hottest numbers when they have cold spots. It allows you to flat bet and avoid deep holes as numbers cool off.

That was the missing link. Now I didn't bother to write sims regarding this method. But it takes flat betting to a discoverable conclusion with the hottest numbers. I didn't bother because it requires playing for about ten hours at a stretch. That is something I had thousands of hours of actual playing experience doing too. I knew after reading this from Ken that I could go back and work out the best options using Ken's ideas. You see, Reading Randomness gets the same results in much less time. I just wait until one of my 6 groupings goes into a win streak phase while searching for the more powerful global effect or the rare elegant pattern. Both of which act like an opportunity to completely hammer the casino with a monster sized win streak.

It is my opinion that coming off of the longer intervals is key to going after hottest numbers when they have the occasional cold spot.

This is not rocket science. In fact it takes situational awareness and timing. These are the primary tools used in Reading Randomness. Yes, hottest numbers will go cold and cold numbers will become the new hottest numbers. That is common randomness. I just don't want to sit on a stool and play all day when other things are also observable.

Can Turbo, Denzie, and Ken win flat betting? The answer is yes and they probably do. Do I like telling Turbo that he is the gambling world's best crash test dummy. Yes, I probably do.

If you happen to be slow on the uptake then this is the roadmap. You must first find the hot and hopefully hottest numbers. You must come up with a way to avoid the cold spots. You must have the time to play long enough to go into profit. There. Now you know what Turbo is more than likely holding back. This utilizes flat betting and hunting. I am a master at finding the few hottest numbers. I've been hunting them for more than 26 years. Ken's idea was the one thing that I never considered and could see it right-away as the missing key.

And just about all of you passed it up.

 

Hogwash.

You can make a plausible sounding argument that in order for the average to be maintained, long sequences without hits must be offset by those numbers catching up. If they didn't, the probabilities wouldn't conform to expectations. Well, yes, but this is long-term averages, so the numbers have all the time in the world, so to speak, to catch up. Sometimes numbers which sleep for a couple of cycles or longer will reappear in a rash, and sometimes they won't; it's not predictable at all in a typical playing session. And in any case, there isn't any balance in terms of the actual numbers; it's only the proportions which equalize over time. As you get more spins the actual numbers of hits for each numbers diverge rather than converge. The results won't be better or worse if you wait for numbers to "wake up" before betting them. But don't take my word for it or Turbo's; test for yourself.

 

Now regarding the decades that the entire gambling world has used "Elegant Patterns" to brow beat me. I've kept a secret from you all because it was so obvious that I enjoyed watching most of you guys "getting your Ya Ya's out" regarding this. Everyone that has seen 20 red or black numbers in a row has seen an elegant pattern. Any time anything happens perfectly that lasts from 20 to 30 spins is an elegant pattern.

Yes, it's fun to keep secrets. You guys that thought you were so clever when using it against me have always been my own personal amusement. I like keeping people guessing too. It's the one thing that most of us old time experienced players have in common. We all paid our dues before crashing in and getting off on dumb things like Marti's.

 

Exactly!

For example, in a 37-shot cycle the link between the first 24 and the next 13 can be exploited by not playing all the 13-shot games and this abstention is determined by a statistical analysis on a statistically valid sample of cycles.

I am attaching a graph showing 96,356 shots played at flat bet with a final result of +39.231 pieces and the cash flow described by the graph curve.

 

So because Raf may be Spanish you want answers?

 

Language is sometimes a barrier to understanding, and being able to chat with someone about roulette in your native language is important. He has also touched on a subject that I have been studying for some time.
All the best.

 

I don't disagree. Simple counting can confirm it.

I don't play Turbo's strategies posted on his personal forum.

Nice, those who understand how to exploit the math show the same flatbet upward sloping graph with small drawdown.

 

Like.

 

You guys have to remember that the methods turbo has shared is only a way to see things in a different way, not the exact way to play it.
That would be to easy. Just copy, play and win.
Most members here see it like that, and keep bashing him that they don't get the same results as he has shown. They are a roadmap so to speak, to nudge you in the right direction, but nobody, well almost nobody sees it. shame really.