TurboGenius Gigi's HR tests

SirAnyone, MJ, Benas and now Ka are the main culprit.

They don't think they are trolling. And nobody can stop them.

MJ post about math is good. Up to a point where it becomes trolling when he prolong the argument on so many threads.

 

When he set his account to public. That's his defining moment.

 

I am actually talking about starting after 3x cycles and I like to only play those numbers that min interval is 36+ first.

I do believe Turbo has a way to win, wants to help people find it, maybe just not for everyone to crack the code as many tried and apparently not may succeed assuming anyone really did and all the bragging isnt just that.

 

You could be a better man and not fuel it

 

Gigi, I give you one pointer about your testing work.

When your test fail you have to know why it fails. Which assumption fail?

Example,

You test coldest to hit higher than odds.

You made some assumptions to identify your coldest, and you made assumption when the best time to start betting in the manner that you did.

Now, the graph shows fail.

Which assumption you adopted fail?

 

I'm trying to stop those silly I'm right you're wrong arguments.
Perhaps I did it the wrong way.

 

If you start get serious with your failed tests, you learn this important lesson.

Failures is normal.

But you have to realise you made assumptions.
It's your assumptions that fail.

You begin to recognise when you make assumptions. That's not good.

You got to have some basis why you make any assumption.

Once you get to this level of understanding and awareness, you will stop testing. And hunt for basis why it work.

That's why I highlighted SirAnyone's valid question many times,

Why must your bet hit higher than odds?

You have to answer this question in some way.
Else there's no point testing other than testing some new out of the box idea which still need some basis.

 

I am tester by trade, so I move from variation to variation, as you say removing the factor that I think is the cause of failure. Now its not always that clear right away at times I am dismissing a particular variant because 10 sessions make 100u on average but then 2 tank from the get go as Mako mentiond, even when playing flat. While this can be tackled sometimes by setting a stop loss, at the moment I am trying to find the best way to play flat and still come on top lets say 9/10 sessions that do not require 40hs of play to win 20u.
I am not posting all my tests here, just some to see if someone will comment or not, which you did. Maybe I'll get to 300 posts and be able to chat with Turbo
There are many angles that in theory can be exploited, the main struggle is either a reset point for the whole process or particular point in game when you remove some selections.

 

Ok, I'm going to throw something into Turbo's idea which I try not to do. Just this once to help.

Have you tested his idea on other locations?

Think about it.
I don't want to say more.

 

I tried min intervals/coldest on Lines through to singles, separately and in one session moving from one location once almost exhausted (never playing the last bit as it can take forever if you are not lucky), I tried hot numbers in streets, in lines, in dozens as per some of his previous examples. Tried horse racing for hots, I've been on this forum a good while As you say probably my basis is wrong that repeats give advantage or the other one that playing cold once they show to get closer to standard deviation or minimal intervals to or close to 1 is wrong.
At least I gave up on jumping in and playing with cash as soon as I thought I had something. Now taking it easy , enjoying the testing maybe one day I'll get either some help from Turbo or other member in private msg that will clear up some fog that is blocking my view apparently.

 

Let me be the proper naysayer with intent to help.

It has been pointed out that coldest can continue to stay cold for a while(perhaps a very long while),

Why must coldest start to hit higher than odds during your playing session?

How often it does and does not?

Same question with hottest.

Where is the basis?

You cannot assume coldest to turn hot at some defined set of spins, or can you?

 

why? Coz once that event passed its more safe to jump in ?

Why not put a decent progression on it ? And of course a session br. You might have +36 spins without a hit but later you might get 2 hits within 36 spins.....

 

Yes coldest can stay cold very long, hence playing them before they start hitting is something I thrown out early on, but then again a cold number can hit first time after 180 spins , then sleep again for 180, there is no way to know beforehand. Then again I would not bet on a single number at a time.

Everything in the long run is leaning towards an expected hit rate 1 in 37, but then again the more spins you run the more numbers end up further away from mean.

Thats the problem, approximate when to play what and how long to stay on them. Does a hot number hitting 3x in one cycle and not hitting at all in 2nd cycle mean its turning cold and should be dropped? Or if a cold number not hitting 3 cycles in a row hitting in 4th cycle twice mean it turned hot?

 

You get less numbers to play with at that point that still are unhits or have min interval 36+. Success depends a lot of times also on how greedy one is, do you want to stop at first profit or keep going until min interval drops or whatever other "exploitation" you are chasing.

 

I write few more pointers here about how to do testing correctly.

In physics they take a huge problem cut it into smaller pieces, then solve these smaller pieces one by one. As you solve each piece you gain knowledge and experience. That's how to go about testing. Word is reductionism.

Again in physics, we look at small changes, the behaviour of small change. What's the variation when we make a small change. That's called differentials.

That's why I emphasise on DETAILS.
Most people don't look at details. That's the most common mistake. Therefore, no progress.

Looking at failed tests in DETAIL is the fastest way to learn. Read my post above.

How you collate data is very important. Whether the test fail or not is not that important.

The manner you collate data should tell you in DETAIL where lies the failure. The purpose of testing is not just to show a graph thats either success or failure. Like RX graphs. Such graphs serve little purpose that doesn't give you DETAILS.

The quality of data collation is just not good enough. If you want to know I use excel sheet to show the DETAILS.

You ask a question, you collate data designed to answer the question.

How many times I repeated this word DETAILS?

 

If you read forums most strategy exploit extreme limit.

This means you collate data at extreme limit so see how variation happens in small steps.

How coldest return to the mean.
How hottest return to the mean.
Study the small variations in DETAIL.
Study limits of different locations in DETAIL.
Are there differences?

If the collated data show a clear defined limit why need a progression?

 

@Luckyfella Thank you, I'll take that into consideration when I finish my current train of thought testing. Others mentioned "limits" before as per the usual random has limits and I get the underlying advantage there, just not there yet at finding the pivot point that guarantees flat betting win in a reasonable number of spins. Also did not spend enough time on other locations or combinations of them like when last Line hits starting to play splits in it rather than just that line to hit again enough times to get closer to the mean.
My problem is too many routes and my brain is always racing with new variation/idea so unlike at work where you are given a project and you methodically take it apart in a given timeframe, here I often jump from one to another idea as soon as one fails, probably as you said not analysing long enough why it failed and getting the best out of that.
I'll keep posting charts of my current test, so just I have a place to revisit if needed, dont pay attention to them

 

Is this a good or a bad looking chart, not chasing losses, so I guess not that bad

 

Same play just less spins available.