TurboGenius Possible Holy Grail - from my website - 2012

Yes, many things were Holy Grail - this one possibly is as it works extremely well.
See below the original quoted section for updated info.

==============================================

=================================================


And to update (2019) :
There isn't much to change from the original - but there are a few things.

Don't reset the spin count after a win.
The only way that ALL bets are removed is when all of them appear in a cycle.
For a cycle, I've changed it to 35 spins to match the required number of spins
to produce a profit given the payout of 35:1
So if you are playing 1 number at 1 unit and 35 spins later there has not been a win,
the next cycle is 2 numbers at 2 units each. If one wins and the other doesn't (example) -
then the next cycle is 2 numbers at 3 units each.
The progression is slow - the amount of numbers being bet always stays low.
It's a win-win.

Here is how it look with the updates :



This was using $5.00 as the unit size.
Again (like the original post) the max amount of numbers ever needed was 3.

Thanks for reading.

 

This exploits the limits on random.
We are betting on the number(s) that are at the edge in the negative aspect
knowing they will appear (and they do of course, and in groups).
The progression and amount of numbers being bet on never grows beyond what's
playable.

 

This is interesting!

What's further interesting is to test whether it makes sense at all to pick the coldest numbers.

Do they behave differently than picking random numbers? On one side - it makes sense - as those numbers "should" start hitting fast to come closer to the avg of 37... But nothing guarantees they won't hit above expected for next few cycles (and then start hitting fast after ten hits for example) which would ruin this logic

Maybe it's even more promising to pick hottest numbers - my "intuition" says at least some of the hottest will stay hot...

But my statistics background says these are all fallacies, random is random - anything can happen and random distribution doesn't give a fu*k about whether something WAS hot or cold in the past...

What keeps me wake up every morning full of enthusiasm is knowleege of math history - damn lot of "knowledge" we had in past about stats laws were debunked over centuries - maybe this is the time when we will break the laws of randomness...

 

I'll test these premises and happily share the results with you in the next few days

 

Just so you know (which you can repeat in testing if you want) that picking any random numbers
to use did not return the same results.
It could be better if you happen to pick numbers that are hot as you play them, and it can be worse
if you happen to pick cold ones...
The bet selection of using the coldest produced the best results over time.
As a control group for example, I used #1 and then added #2 and then $3 if needed, the
charts always went negative.

 

Thanks!

One more question (if possible) which would help me in tests

Do you reset on a new high or do you set a specific win/stop goal (not just for this system, but in general - what's produced better results for you)?

 

He said not reset on a win. Only when all played numbers come within 1 cycle ( or if It's late and you wanna go home lol )

 

Yes, I saw... But I wondered whether that's his rule in general... Unfortunately, I don't have much time these days for big testings - so I'm "debugging" this system in my head - and the biggest problem I came up with is what if one of the picked numbers becomes "super long sleeper" (400+ spins) so we're at 10u per number... Other numbers are hitting fine, but then a second number becomes "mild sleeper" (100+ spins)... That would definitely destroy the bankroll .

And not reset on win, but on a new high... That could maybe prevent the deadly scenario described above...

 

Here're the results of my first test.

I played exactly as is described.

When picking next number with the least hits (lowest std (hmm, this is z-score)) miserably failed, I tried with picking next number which didn't appear the longest - it failed even more miserably...

Damn...

 

That's unusual - well, aside from the $100.00 unit size perhaps to emphasize the loss lol.

Down $123,000.00 sure looks worse than "Down 1,230 units" which is nothing really.
My chart from the website clearly shows a drop of 1,130 units...... the same as yours.
Strange isn't it ?
Mine at 13,000 spins and trending (red line) upwards.... yours a "self proclaimed" miserable failure.
And here I thought we were testing.
You showed the same results as I had.

Perhaps you should reveal your intentions.

 

There're no "hidden intentions"...

Of course, we're here to test. It just pisses me off when your tests always show upward trend - and when I try exactly what you say - my results are completely opposite.

Here's the screenshot of another attempt in picking the coldest numbers.

Maybe I'm not doing this right... After 130 spins the last number hit (36) - I start playing it (1u at 36), and after 35 spins there's no hit. I add next coldest number 6 - so I play (2u at 36 and 2u at 6)... Again, after 35 spins no hit... So I add next coldest number 18, so I play 3u at 36, 6 and 18.

In the next cycle 36 and 18 hits... I removed them and keep playing 6 until the end of the cycle... As 36 remained the coldest - the next cycle I play 4u at 6 and 36... Is this correct - I should always pick the coldest, even though it hit in the previous cycle?

In the next cycle, both 6 and 36 hit... I remove them both and wait for the cycle to end, and in the next cycle, as 36 is still the coldest, I play 1u at 36... etc etc...

In the session from which I attached the screenshot, 3, 36 and 18 remained the coldest for almost all ~3000 spins... I kept rotating them through cycles as they remain the coldest... is that correct?

 

No, your results were the same - as I explained above.. your unit drawdown was the same as mine
and long term my chart kept climbing.

The only difference that I see is this - as soon as you remove the bets being played, you start again
by betting the single coldest, there's no need to play out the remainder of the cycle - just start a new
spin count with the single coldest number at 1 unit.

 

But Bozidar says:

Perhaps it would be better than after hitting all the numbers on the table, start a new count of numbers. That is, let's start writing numbers until all the numbers appear and start playing the number that only has 1 hit.

Would it be right like this TurboGenius?

Thanks!!!

 

How you been doing it now Turbo, still profit?

 

Sorry to come in between of things, but i want to add something, the way i would play it if i were to. Not that my way is the best, but just my vision.
Track 35 spins.
look wich numbers are the sleepers from this cycle, note them.
As soon as one of these numbers appear we start our session of 35 spins on this number only. use turbo's adding of the coldest only when this number that is bein' played didn't got hit during the 35 spins. When this happens we look wich of the sleeping numbers from the first session also showed up and still only has 1 hit (it's still behind).
We now play the 3rd cycle with those two numbers with 2u each for the next 35 spins.
MY WAY....Only remove a number when it did got hit after the cycle is over, not sooner.!!
99% of the time the hits will come in clusters and when you remove a number to early, you will miss out on those extra hits! trust me, i have tested this to death and it almost always does. when the played cycle is over you remove the number that got hit in these 35 spins and continue with the remaining number with one unit again for the next cycle. keep note of all the other hits, because you arw gonna need the data later on.
further more, bring a healthy bankrol when you are gonna start playing this way and make sure you will have enough time to play it, because the sessions can be a drag and may take quite some time before you have a new high.
just tips how i would play it, no need to copy it. just wanna tell how i would play it.
I would never and i mean never start playing a number that hasn't shown yet, it could be a very long time sleeper. why waste money playing this way. when a number wakes up and is behind regarding his average appereances it will never be that long time sleeper again. sure it can go to sleep again for the next hundred of spins or so after showing up, but usualy it doesn't it the hits will come in sooner and faster, to make up for the below averange performance. test it and you will see i'm right. so start playing turbo's system it's a very strong one and it can make a good amount of money if it's your day. but only after a sleeper has shown, not sooner! it's a rule. have a great weekend.

 

where did you play to win like that, if its simulator it doesnt count. in rng it only keeps loosing

 

Turbo, could you share the .dgt file, please?

 

Trying to get TG’s system to break…..so far hasn’t broken. Max bet was 4 units on 4 numbers. Cleared all numbers in 1 cycle. 5,000 kitchen table spins.

 

Another 1000 spins…..max bet 6 units on 3#’s. A little uncomfortable a 6 units but all #’s cleared on a cycle. No way can this can be played at a B&M. At least not sober. Love TG’s posts. Dude thinks outside the box IMHO.