Roulette A Challenge 2 - for Turbo M

Yeah vague. But then it can't be described in detail because then it will be proved that it doesn't work. I'm not sure what this "challenge" actually is. Is it "find a winning roulette system by betting on hot numbers/repeaters"? We've already shown that it can't work except that TG told us we're missing a few things despite also saying that he wanted everyone to understand. No matter how many variations we come up with, if they don't work they must be "missing something", lol. I guess it makes some people feel powerful to have others run around trying to guess their alleged winning system.

It's funny how although TG says he has given us the basic principle, some MINOR variation seems to make ALL the difference between winning and losing, lol.

 

Hey, c'mon. No punching below the belt..

1 point penalty for Michaela, lol.

 

"He can punch below the belt yet can't think above the neck"

 

you mean she, don't you?

 

Are you using ''Bayes'' username at other forums?
Even if you would, would you let us know?

 

Why is it punching below the belt? It seems like a plausible explanation to me, and I'm giving TG the benefit of the doubt because another explanation is that all the bragging and hinting is for the purpose of selling a system by PM. That's why this kind of behaviour is banned at some other gambling forums.

Right. I must be reeeeally stupid because I can't think of a way to beat roulette by picking "hot" numbers. Never mind, I guess I'm in good company because Einstein couldn't either, lol.

 

No and no.

 

Michaela is MIKE on the other forums. He is useing the same avatar, and said it some post ago...

 

I have to say Michaela does make some good point regarding vague posting. I however do NOT think that Turbo is a scammer. Turbo's a good guy.

 

I don't think TG's a scammer either, just a bit odd. I don't know why he feels the need to string everyone along with hints and riddles, but I guess he's not the only one.

 

I agree that Turbo is totally not scammer, but sometimes he can be very stuborn

 

I think it's because he described the system, and then we handily proved that it doesn't work. I believe that he thought that it really did work, until it didn't. In other words it worked over a couple hundred spins until it didn't. After that it was just easier and more fun for him to play the "secret squirrel game," rather than admitting that he was wrong.

 

I noticed too that he probably changed a bit his method in last his visit of casino from the one from December 2016. in one of his recent posts he also wrote one sentence which can change very much his way of playing. I think I know his way of playing and it looks that many not know exactly his way because a catch is in details, but similar are several ways. He did not want to post numbers from his last visit, so no one cannot prove his/her own way and compare it with Turbo's way ;-)

 

No, I mean "he".

That's silly isn't it - didn't someone (Exoter or some name like that) offer me a "huge" amount of cash for the details and even a team to play it and all kinds of other goodies thrown in to make the pot even sweeter ? I surely didn't take that - nor would I - nor would I ever charge anyone a penny for information (unlike others who do it openly)

You can actually prove that it does work.
Do 38 different numbers appear in 38 spins ?
Does the same number appear 38 times in a row ?
Does this obviously prove that numbers will repeat (given you answer no to both of those easy questions).
Does the house edge apply when a number doesn't appear and I never placed a bet on it ?
Simple questions - very simple answers - but if you answer them you'll actually contradict yourself and God forbid you spend some mental work on it - you might figure it out too. Imagine that.

 

Turbo,

I'm way beyond system testing. I can see right through this stuff.

However if you'd like to play the vague secret squirrel game, by all means have at it.

 

It's not system testing - just simple questions.

 

Hey Fossell, sorry for the delay, busy with the wife & kids. I think the chart and table are what you had in mind.

Not sure if means anything, but I thought the shape of the first hits appears more concave versus the others appear more convex.

The averages are there as well... I didn't do any additional descriptive statistics.





Everyone, have a great weekend.

 

That - my friend - is a thing of beauty
Its as expected for the 1st 3 repeats. Rises from 8 tapers down mid 20.
Are the other plots on this for 2nd, 3rd, 4th etc repeats of a third number only?

 

Also, I know your busy. Im in the same position with family and work. But would love to see the range extended to 2 or 3 cycles. So 76 or 114 count. But plotting for a any number repeating 4,5,6 times. Might require separate graphs as the above is starting to look busy.

The concave is interesting on the first. Maybe just caused by the start of the count. Does it always show as that if you ran it again?

 

Sorry for my rambling, but just thinking out loud. I go back to the very first chart that TG posted. If a person played a single number through 3 cycles the results would be X. Then I'm thinking about one of the issues that we have is that we can have a number repeat and then we wager on it through the whole cycle for nothing. Further, I'm pondering the frequency chart, that playing a number to repeat sooner is far better than to play it later.

End of the day only one number can be chose. It is all random, why would we bet on two? Two numbers can't win. Sure we are shoring up our odds, but all of the numbers are independent.

What if we simply play the last number to hit twice, until another does. One unit at a time. Follow the last, but it would be follow the last repeat.

Thoughts?