Roulette What if I told you...

Friday?

 

"You better watch out." I hope you are another retarded Millennial that doesn't know what has been done to them. If so, you have a ton of shit to go through. The entire world around your kind knows the Kool-aid you've been drinking, except for of course, you. You don't even have a pea shooter.

I was critical of this progression and this method until I got what I wanted. I wanted to know what it was so that I could study it. But you special snowflakes need it to be delivered on a platter fully reviewed. That makes this thread interesting from a human nature perspective. Changing a baby's diapers is entertaining when it comes to the political correctness demanded by the fairness police. BTW, I meant this bad.

 

wow people can be touchy on these forums I wish no bad and hope we all win but seems like youve taken this personally so for that i apologise!

 

Look cornball. I know you are hustling me with your manipulation bull shit. What do you want to bet that you are an NPD or an NVD, and that if that misses the targe,t how about a co-dependent Drama Queen that at least can't deal with disagreement. Just in case you didn't know it, you are the one that decided all this is personal. It's just a thread about a progression.

 

just thought id upset you so i apologised as i can be a jerk when drunk. You obviously dont accept that,fair enough.
Im more interested in the bet selection by the way but do agree the progression is a must.

 

These numbers would have won using the pattern not repeating in each dozen method as well!
The method i was developing needed tracking/waiting for a number to hit 4 times

 

Gizmotron makes money by pretending to know how to win. He then relies on the foolish and gullible to send him money to learn the "secrets."

 

Snowball, I have people working on my methods. There is no guarantee that any of them will be as skilled as I am. But Denzie has displayed a capability that even I have not achieved. He stuck with something that I recommended not sticking with. And he did something with it that I thought impossible. There are only about 12 active members at the school. Because I haven't advertised anywhere there are no longer people joining the school. My goal is to make sure if anything happens to me my discoveries won't be lost. So I'm satisfied that these students have it. I don't need the money. It's just $35 once in a while. That's far less than a practical bet. If you begrudge me for spending time at my private forum then why don't you buy a box of crying towels. I rather like this. $35 keeps you out.

 

hmmmm, it is very strange how this thread became quiet but it had a great potencial on the beginning. Now a big question is, did all roulette players figured out TG's recent system OR they all gave up. Interesting to me is that Gizmotron claimed to figured it out, BUT now he is very quiet and not reports here how happy he is with that system. So far only two answers came on my mind and they are that he has no idea about a system, or second, that a system is not so good as TG claims ;-)

Another interesting question for all of you; DO you believe that you could win every time IF you would get a "sure winning" system???

(Many developers believed in past that if they would reveal their SUPER system, method, program, RC,... that they will lose all benefits and potencial which they could have if played alone. Funny is that casinos are still growing up like a mushrooms. WHY??? Only one answer can be: not a systems/methods/programs/RCs are winning, BUT players with the best knowledge and experiences are those who can win.)

 

That's fair. I was thinking of running this as an app when Denzie showed up at my school with a variation of the TG method here that was working for him. I've spent a few days building a test app to research that one.

I've never found a mechanical system that beats Roulette based on a set of rules. TG says it works. I have not confirmed it. I found Denzies variation on it far more interesting. Now Denzie says he is way ahead. What I have so far does not work so well so I'm waiting to see if I have his instructions correct. I seriously doubt that this thread's TG method or system beats the math.

My waiting for the opportunity to occur method is still the best thing that I have come across. If you gamble for 150 to 200 spins you will almost always have a good streak that can make you a session winner. We all know these progressions have sequences that kill them off. So why not exploit sequences that win exceptionally well? My method is based on conditional awareness. Many here think that this is nothing but BS. They are of course on the outside looking in and claiming knowledge and credibility without even a clue of the skill involved.

 

Enough info has already been posted in this thread and a few others that I detailed for people to read.
If you want a step-by-step instruction manual on how to do it - it's not going to happen.

Of course you can win every time, so long as you have the math in your corner.

 

You will always see something like this in random :



You will never see this in random :

 

Thanks Gizmo for an honest answer!
I agree with you that it is hard to recognize what exactly TG is doing, because here are too less details about playing system, no matter that TG claims opposite. If a system has posibility for many variations then can be positive output in doubt. So someone will win, other ones will lose, so we come again in main thesis: not a system wins, BUT a player wins ;-)

Yes, I think too that many here already gave up on that system, so silence in roulette forum in last days says it all. BUT on other side I am not sure that TG wrote all that as a joke. He was always very open in past and always wanted to help roulette community with a new and new systems. So why he would this time write some "BS" and with that piss off all memebers here. I would somehow understand if he would write some BS in some other forums which he hates recently, BUT not here.
I even thought for a second that TG could be Priyanka in other forum, but after reading more posts from that "lady", I relaized that TG does not change outcome numbers into very strange sequences, because he is more realistic man.

 

TG, where is catch in your new system?
Something is strange here. I know that you know something about VB and bias ways of playing roulette BUT you not impement these methods into your systems becuse those methods are not so easy for playing and require long tracking hours. BUT you also not want to play your new system every day and if I understood correct, you even took a break of visiting casinos till January 2017. This does not sound good for "sure winning system", does it? So where is, or at least potencial, flaw/fault in it ???

Do you have a skype account?

 

There is no catch.

It sounds very good actually. I know some people think it's wise or smart to play big and win big for as long as possible. I've never seen this as a good approach and have never done it that way. I have a few casinos to choose from between PA and AC - once or twice per month at any of them is fine with me.
The flaw ? There can't be one. Random is going to be random and the math doesn't change.

 

TG, thanks for honest answers!

 

I'd missed this. I recognise that pattern. The first row being 2's if I'm not mistaken?

 

TG I like your views with this system and how you look at this, makes sense. I have been running my take on the system (best guess) this last week and I was going well until I went into meltdown. Pretty sure this was my human error, feeling invincible and straying slightly, guess that's all it takes sometimes

I'm just reworking all my numbers and tweaking. Do you have a max number of numbers you bet on at any one time? Think I overdid it on a losing session!!

Also, dropped you a mail with more info over the weekend, not sure if you got it?

Cheers

 

Been on the road (still am) have we had evidence posted yet? Or are we still posting fake graphs as evidence?

 

Ex, this is a classic baloney festival. It's purpose is to get people to see something that is not here. Turbo never beat any math with a progression. It's just a sucker trap. I have stated for years that nobody has ever created a mechanical, rule based system, such as a complex progression, where a mathematical advantage has produced a better than expected result of 36/37 or 36/38 respectively.

This thread is one of two things. Turbo has never learned that he will never find a system (contraption) that will beat Roulette, or he has learned it but can't stand living in a world where he failed to go any further. In that respect he is just like Snowman. It's funny how internet addiction can serve a need of sorts. I can't imagine testing system after system for decades and not figuring it out.