TurboGenius Advantage of Repeaters explained - part 3 - 2020

Well, I don't think talking about a Geiger counter takes away from Nimo's idea or hint. I think the Geiger counter has a lot to do with all Turbo topics, especially this part. Here he was mentioned many times, especially by Turbo. And our lack of understanding of how he relates to roulette prevents us from finding what we are looking for.
When I found this forum, this thread had just recently been created and there was the most heated discussion about it. And at the same time, a character like Wolfie created a theme here that Turbo was right, I think remember. And remember how he wrote that he had watched this video hundreds of times for several years. And then he let it go. And after some time he looked again, and then he understood everything. By the way, Nimo also advised Gigi to let it go, and that perhaps someday while brushing his teeth, it would come to him. But let’s not talk about that, this topic concerns how the mechanisms for finding answers work. And Wolfie wrote to us to watch it and watch it, and we should understand how this relates to roulette!
Regarding the half-life, what does Chrono write and that it is not in roulette. It exists. You don't understand it that way. In this video and in the example about the Geiger counter, they talk about half-life, explaining in simple language, using dices as an example. They took these dice, and each time they chose dice with the number five. And the result was almost the same graph as with the half-life. There is no half-life in roulette. But there is something else. I also watched this video many times trying to understand. But then somehow there was a conversation here on the forum about a Geiger counter, and I also asked Turbo, and asked about an example of these dice. He said that although this also applies to roulette, it is not the most important thing. Although in reality it also matters. He answered somehow vaguely, but I understood what half-life is in roulette.
Half-life in roulette is LOTT. This is what he sometimes posted, that after 1 cycle of 37 spins, there are 24 numbers left that fell out. In the second cycle, about 16 remain from these 24. In the third cycle, about 11 remain from these 16. In the fourth, about 7, etc.
But the most important thing is still the Geiger counter. Because it shows an incredibly predictable result. Reminds of Hal's words, right?)) Remember also Bitrock, Denzi and others who said that the longer you play, the more accurate the choice of bets! Do you understand this? I still can't figure out how this is. But the Geiger counter indicates this 100%! Because his third column is incredibly predictable.
I would, of course, like Nimo to say that we can do without it... But he won’t say. Because it's not like that.

 

I always fail to write about patterns. What applies to the Geiger counter - I believe this applies to patterns. In general, after reading all of Turbo’s posts, you understand that everything is about patterns! Even in the thread that Gary started recently, and the quote is from the first threads of Turbo. I wanted to write that he started quoting the wrong sentences. There in the very first post we talk about patterns! And that guy Fossell, he wrote there that he was looking for patterns. He understood this. He asked if anyone else knew patterns other than the 2/3 law. Yes, we also only know him. Turbo said that the Geiger counter produces predictable patterns. Denzy has never written about patterns, but at the beginning of the year, when he was arguing with Mr. J, he also wrote out of anger for the first time that roulette produces predictable patterns. So it's all about patterns. About very predictable patterns!

Regarding the quote above about Eugene and his wonderful post, I think this also concerns a kind of pattern. We know that hot numbers have their average to be drawn. For example, the average value for the first 4x is 37 spins. But in some of my tests on numbers with a real roulette, when the first number 3x fell (it doesn’t really matter on what spin, about 20, let’s say that the norm is for an average 3x), but after that the first 4x appears only after 60 spins! And this is almost 2 cycles.
That is, it turns out that the first 4x appeared only on the 80th spin, and its average value is 37, which means it should appear below 37 spins, but it appeared on the 80th! And Eugene was right. He also wrote that adding a spin counter opened his eyes. In fact, he wrote that if hot numbers do not fall out, then “single numbers” will fall, that is, not down, if we look at the Turbo table, but to the right. And this is also a kind of pattern that if we see that we have, for example, 3,4 or even 5 3x, depending on how we play, and then the next number 3x appears, then we understand that the next 4x may not be soon. And then we either have to wait until the first 4x falls out, which means that most likely the hot ones will fall out again. Or is it worth switching to other numbers, that is, another pattern where non-hot numbers will fall. I've been looking for the last few years to be on both the hot and not hot numbers at the same time. But I don't know if this is possible.

 

I won’t quote you Gigi, and with all due respect, your tests and ideas that you shared - well, this is what we tested at the very beginning 4 years ago. This has all been done before. With the exception of version 4, which probably deserves special attention, which I also tested then, but I won’t write about it now.

I honestly don’t understand, maybe I somehow misunderstand, and I’m not saying that I’m right at all, but I’m surprised why no one has written about the hint of top3 as top1, in this interpretation??? Because what Gigi suggests doesn’t seem to me to relate to this hint at all? Well, that is, Gigi, what has changed when you just take the first 3 numbers, it doesn’t matter from 1x or 2x or 3x, etc. in relation to top3 as top1? I see that this seems like it should be simple, but why hasn't anyone written it? And it seems to me that I'm wrong. But nevertheless, I have already wanted to share my version several times, and the idea that I had 2.5 years ago.

I see the hint of top3 as top1 speaks for itself. Well, it's just obvious to me. But most likely I'm wrong. So, playing top3 as top1, I consider it to be playing with 9 numbers in this case. That is, top1 will consist of the first 3 numbers, top2 will consist of 4,5 and 6 numbers, and top3 will consist of 7,8, and 9 numbers. Well, that is, it’s kind of like that. Nimo was just there saying something about street and so on. Why don't you look at it this way I don't understand? But I think this makes more sense and directly creates what Nimo hinted at.

And I also want to share a certain version of this that I tested 2.5 years ago, as I wrote, and I really liked it and was successful. I left her for a number of reasons, but this is the case. Believe me, you will all like it. And it has a similar relationship to top3 as top1, at least in my interpretation.

 

I want to introduce you to the idea I talked about above. I didn’t look at it then as top3 as top1, although... That’s exactly how I looked at it, it turns out. At that time I had not yet found or even read all of Turbo’s messages, but he also wrote some idea here and someone posted a link to one of these threads.

Remember, maybe someone read that Turbo proposed to make a group of numbers as one number, and for them to compete with each other, as in this table here in 3 parts. Although he said that the more numbers in the group, the more accurate the forecast, but the longer the wait. I'll take the streets as an example.

Let's say 2 numbers fall on one of the streets, and then we bet on this 3 number, which has not yet appeared, because this is the first street on which one number remains to fall, or the street on which one horse remains to reach the finish line, according to his analogy, as he said it by itself. That is, this is a street that claims to be the top 1 of the three horses that all finished, or simply a street that claims to have the first 3 numbers that all appeared. If at this time another street appears with two numbers drawn, then we also bet on this street the 3 number that did not appear, and they will already compete to see which of them will fall out the fastest. Well, etc. I think the point is clear, and you’ve read and tested it, I’m sure.

But I had a different question. So we chose a group of numbers in advance. That is, either streets, or lines, or something from 4 numbers, etc. But some, such as Fossell, wrote that who knows how to choose a group of Turbo numbers? And that randomness itself creates these patterns from groups of numbers, or something like that. And I started thinking, how can I select such patterns from groups of numbers during the game so that they compete with each other?

Honestly, they didn’t really come up with anything, I didn’t see anything other than taking 3 or 4 numbers from the top numbers, like in Turbo’s table. Well, that is, as I said, essentially for me this is top3 as top1. And to be honest, the tests are quite impressive. Even on one of the groups of spins with real roulette, where the Turbo table is defeated at the beginning in the main, then with such an idea it was played very well. I'll show this with an example.

I will take not 9, but 12 numbers as an example. That is, 4 horses consisting of 3 numbers will compete. In parentheses on which spin the number appeared, like at Eugene. I'll start with 2x

2x 10(14) 12(15) 5(18) | 23(23) 24(27) 18(28) | 16(30) 33(34) 21(35) | 19(36) 22(38) 7(40) |

So I immediately wrote down the 2х that appeared and on what spin. Let's see how the numbers come out on 3x.

3х 23(29) 10(39) 5(44) | 12(46) 36(51) 16(54) | 35(57) 0(59) 2(60) | 30(62) 19(64) 32(68) |

So I immediately wrote down the 3х that appeared and on what spin.
We see that #23 fell out from the second group of numbers, then #10 from the first group and on the 44th spin #5 also from the first group. This means that on the 44th spin we bet on #12. And we see that after 2 spins it falls out. We are up by 34 chips.

Unfortunately, I don’t have time to write in full, and I don’t think it’s necessary. I think you get the point. And we can somehow try to apply something like this to top3 as top1.

 

Playing top3 as top1

My interpretation:

wait when all 3 numbers are out before the next tier top1 number is out.

meaning:

1 x 1 - 2 - 3
2 x

There is no top 2x number out yet. Start betting all 3

1 x 1 - 2 - 3
2 x 2

You cant play this because top1 2x is already out.

If done some testing with the above, same as betting random unfortunatly...

 

You mean like this Karl

From a stream of 37

 

Karl the stream of 37
This is conveniently 37 spins and makes Denzies 100 units. Now, some say, BLA, BLA, BLA. Then another says, BLA, BLA, BLA. And it goes on and on.
Have you people looked at the excel in opening post?

 

The 1st 10 spins has 1 repeat. At spin 4 you could walk.
Spins 11-20 had the 4 repeats. Repeats show to a known average.
Spins 21-30 has 9 repeats. Repeats show to known average.
spins 31-40 should have 16 repeats. Nemo knows this average.
Well, this stream played exactly to LOTT. 24 of the starting 37 have hit at least once. And you have 13 repeats.
Now there are 23 spins to get to 60 spins.
60 spins the usual is 30/30. If 24 of the 37 have shown; then another 6 of those remaining need to hit in the 23 spins.
If you are going to0 take Turbo's 3000 to win 3000; good luck with that.
That to good to be true excel with just 11 numbers from 60 positions. Above has 5 already.

 

I'm sorry @Naughty but nice you always go all over the place, I cant seem to follow. I only test in excel. Tried the 3as1 in many variations, so far no difference. This is what @Chrono doing as well. Testing as many variations as possible in excel. So far I've tested hundreds of variations none of them any difference compared to random.

 

Thats exactly why I gave few interpretations last night starting with what seemed to me most straight forward, going into bit more complex, to show how something technically very simple from lingual point of view can have so many interpretations.
I dont see how playing 9 numbers is "top3 as top1", since Nimo wrote that in context of Turbo post adv part1 that focuses on playing 1 number (he then liked a post under it where someone suggested playing 4-5 instead of 1 number).

But looking at your kind of street play, Turbo covered this extensively and obviously we all tested but I challenged his stats on it too. He said play whats most expected to happen so, after first number in a street hits, whats actually most likely to happen is NOT a repeat of it but a hit on remaining two. That changes after you have 2numbers already out in a street, you have higher probability of getting a hit on those two than last one to show (this also was demonstrated with dozens, takes on avg around 5 spins for all 3 to show, so even if you get 1, 2 it's more likely to hit 1 or 2 again than dozen 3 on 3rd spin).
So while in your example going for completion of "street" got a hit I think more like event is to get a repeat on 2 numbers that moved ahead already at least that gives you a stop loss if 3rd number hits. (Remember Turbo... never play the last of anything)
Going with your take on custom streets in a horse race, the higher laps you go the smaller pool of numbers you'll work with, but that shouldn't be an issue if you take early profits.

Anyway you've an interesting take, so just one question:
If you say it was profitable why still search for something else?

 

Sp @Nimo does all the above giving you an idea how far and wide everyone are with even what seems like a simple hint pointing at adv repeaters part1?

I think you can help us tiny bit more without risking much

 

Mr J did complete a street. Perhaps he can give a few riddles

 

I'll throw one more into the mix
V5

Play top1 from current level until top3 fill next up or you win

1x 23 - we start playing it
1x 23 | 12 | 11
2x 34 (we start with 34 but still keep 23 until we get all 3 in 2x)

2x 34 | 11 | 23 - win on 23 can continue with 34 or start over

 

I think we also need a few ground rules as well:

A. It needs to win flat bet (obivous)

B. If A. is not true. Then there NEED to be an obvious difference in data. Meaning comparing A. the algorithm with B. random.

What do I mean with this. for example both are 1:37 but for instance A. gets more double hits or the max interval is lower. etc etc.

I think we all can agree to this?

@Nimo Just curious is A or B for you?

 

Karl. You are like those over at RF in lets chat. You are making something complicated that is simple.
Just go to the excel Turbo posted in opening post and think how do i bet the 1-2-3 of each lap.
Again, 100 units from 28 spins.

 

Naughty can you say how to bet as you refer to that forum you doing the same , think and ask?

 

Platton your whey is a very nice approach applying some other things on those setts there it seems that are happening interesting things and on sweet range off spins.

 

Like I said I've tested the horse race extensively. Ive tested close to 100 variables. None of them returned a difference in data.

You rules are not clear to me. They seem to go all over the place...

 

Same here. There's only 2 ways to win the random game theoretically. Figure out some way to get a higher hit rate than your statistical hit rate, or reduce the dispersion (w/l streaks) as two up said and then apply a negative progression.

I never measured the second one, but I could never achieve a greater hit rate than random on my other tests and my negative progression always ran away so I doubt I ever touched the dispersion testing the horse race.

 

Quite sure Denzie and Nimo are using Progressions..