Roulette More Proof of Turbo's fallacy

In this thread Turbo claimed that by betting the unhit numbers after a cycle of 37 spins, and continuing to bet them in successive cycles, you will "always have the advantage". I've attached a file showing in mind-numbing detail the results of this "system". There are 100 sessions shown in the file, where a session begins by observing the first cycle, then betting the unhit numbers as they come up in further cycles. The session ends when there are only 2 numbers left unhit. The bank is reset to zero at the start of each new session (the cumulative bank is updated at the end of each session). A "*" marks the first showing of an unhit number.

In Turbo's thread he showed us the results of one session, which looked great. However, for the true picture we need more data.

I think the results speak for themselves. If you want to see more sessions or have anything tweaked, just ask.

 

Can you give a summary of the results too please.

 

You mean other than he plays roulette and has a goofy picture trying to make himself look interesting?

What a bunch of suckers that deserve to lose their money.

No wonder the guy loves Larry Krasner.

 

Good grief, another thread on the same topic.

 

-1352 units

I added a count of the number of winning sessions, and guess what, the next lot of 100 sessions ended in a profit!

 

-425 units.

 

+515 units...

 

So it does win SOMETIMES. In the long run though (1000 sessions):

Accumulated bank over all sessions = -10390

Number of winning sessions : 433

 

Very interesting.

 

I know what Turbo will say - something like that " what here write Joe and what I play are different things, I used some special methodic, which allow me to win , but cant open what that is ..."

 

Probably. And this will likely put him off posting any more actual details. It will just be charts from now on, and no explanations at all. Apart from that, nothing will change.

 

I that pointed him always. He usually post something what is mathematically - not true. Something like - "I win because average hits are 1/37", and he even not understand that he especially lost because that and if win, then only because luck.
I tryed to show, how me can something to prove, that is super simple and not need open even any secreet and sugested to find something to him also.
For example me always have - normal distribution , because is max possible distance which ball can do and are minimal. Of course I them ideally exact not know , but can calculate enough exact from other meanings. And I can prove, that similar chart i will get always.
And on normal distribution is clear where I need to play...
All rest is simply math - hiow big my advantage is and if worth to play or not....

 

this was discussed in depth here years ago
https://rouletteforum .cc/index.php?topic=4960.0

 

What was the conclusion?

 

don,t be lazy...read the thread....

tbh same principle can be used on the 4 number groups....everything is lott

 

Ok so the conclusion was it didn't work. Why didn't you just tell me that instead of wasting my time reading it?

 

you read that quick...and no its not a waste of time reading it..you should have learned at least something basic..

nottos tracker ayk did for betting on unhits shows you a lot too...

https://www.mediafire.com/file/f8tfm7uo6nfq7vx/notto.rar/file

 

I ain't going pro/contra Turbo here, a completely objective review.

Took your latest 1.4 full-batch file. It seems to me you wanna loose on purpose.

Just had a look at the first session; & already see you are betting each of the unhit numbers only till first hit → number dismissed.

I know that your stand is biased 'against' Turbo, but at least, besides attempfing to improve perhaps even perfect the method, you purposefully derail it primary rails/outline.Why did you go & do this another 999 over if already the first test shows you thins ain't the way .. well refer to the first sentence of the paragraph.


MJ, at least you would sincerely attempt to win

First thing first, just to begin with -- if a number is late (beyond current 1/35, or 1/35+extra since the beginning of me measurement = session) .. it will take a few hits to profit itself, or get symbiotically with others' number profits nearby ±0 .. enpugh for collectively profit.


Then again, DSAA has a point too -- edge is not too many doing the same thing ..

 

Is this a who is losing the most contest ? Just asking .

 

Lol raindrops .. . .. . .. .