Roulette Just hit a session with a 606 spins sleeper

28 slept for 606 spins, I let it going to see what happens, and you will realize it didn't hit like crazy after this "rare" event. Attached the 1000 spins session. It sweeps the idiots' idea that you can get an edge playing cold numbers that for them become hot numbers.

 

For those who want to import the session on RX:

http://www.filedropper.com/606

 

Also.....for you morons, the 29 & 30 are hot so, "bet the street". You are WASTING units.

Another one I love....(assuming this is a 00 wheel), the 9 is hot so bet its 2 or 4 neighbors. STUPID!

Bet the 9 by itself, dont be a hero. Shit like this is RF and Roulette30 lunacy.

Seems people like their "insurance" bets (lol). Fuckin rookies.

Ken

 

Ok so I had to remove that idiot from my ignore list to read this - so lets see.

A) these are modified spins.
Run off 1,000 spins - save the text file... open it and remove as many 28's as you want to make it appear that it didn't appear for that many spins (easy). Why remove so many and be obvious about it ? I have no idea.
To have 605 spins (before it does show) and have a single number at -4.10 std deviation while all of the others are perfectly "normal" (+1.92 to -1.84 std deviation) is the first obvious sign that the list was modified on purpose.
This doesn't happen, nor would it ever - learn math Bago before you edit spins to lie to people.

B) Up to this point - excluding the edited #28 of course.. the most any number went without appearing was 209 spins (perfectly normal) - and what's the std deviation of that number ? -0.09 (almost perfect).
But Bago wants you to believe that the 28 went 605 spins to -4.10 SD.... really Bago ?
If you think people are stupid, carry on - to continuously make yourself look foolish is a waste of time.

C) That said - mysteriously once it did appear at 606 to the end (1,000). It showed up 10 times.
About once every 39 spins on average - exactly as it should have and working it's way back to "normal"
Editing numbers won't help unless you edit them all Bago. You should have taken out maybe every 3rd time it showed or something less obvious. Great, now I have you a good idea to use next time your mouth opens and shit comes out.

Even having ""fun"" with it once it did appear using a progression - 1,2,4,8,16,32 (hell, why not)
it produced 641 units profit by spin 837 (for 231 spins - yes I know - who would want 641 units of profit in only 231 spins - other than everyone who ever plays roulette) - not that it matters or I would suggest doing that - No where did I say anything about playing a single number. The top 10 coldest numbers for example, or top 5 etc - needing ONLY one of them to win at a higher than expected rate (which they do...listen and learn).
But regardless, it still made a profit - contrary to his comments.

And to be even more clear - "MY" method is playing repeats.
Consider this - that even with his edited spins - I lost absolutely NOTHING with the number "sleeping" because I would never have had a single bet on it. I would have already won using repeaters and left the casino long before his so-called 606 spins were played out (10 hours of play ? lol).

Now back on ignore you go Bago - Steve was right about you, I'll give him that much credit.

 

Turbo,

I don't know why you think the other numbers should behave worse because one number hasn't hit in 605 spins. Your "first obvious sign" is built upon a faulty premise. I've seen numbers much worse than only 4.1 standard deviations below normal. (By the way, technically there's no such thing as a negative standard deviation. Sometimes I say it that way as well.)

Also, why is it a big deal that up until that point the most any number went without hitting was only 209 spins? After all, he wasn't playing for 50k spins. It's like the time I saw red hit 26 times in a row. If someone had just walked up to view the last 50 spins they would have said that up until that point the most they'd seen red hit in a row was only five or six times.

Yes Bago is an as$ but your argument in this case is pretty lame.

 

Go back on his forum sucking his scammer's dick then, and don't forget to purchase his system at roulettenumber.com you who believe like a fool RNG can be beaten.

A number can perfectly sleep for more than 600 spins in the long run, only a sucker and complete idiot like you believe I have edited this session. The guy plays on RX for 20 years and don't know this LOL. You open your big ignorant mouth without thinking and writing your thoughts as if it was a certainty, whereas FACTS ON ROULETTE STATISTICS PROVE YOU ARE A LIAR AND CONMAN. You demonstrate you are a gambler's gallacy ignorant player.

Each time you reply to my posts, you are showing to people you are a sucker like you did when you claimed the return is 35 units whereas it is 36.

Now you are cornered with your flawed theory that cold numbers become hot numbers which I just proved the contrary, you are explaining you are on repeaters AS IF IT CHANGES ANYTHING. I will give you here what happens in the long run for your repeaters fucking idiot:

Hit rate after a number repeats 2 times: 1/37 return: 36
Hit rate after a number repeats 3 times: 1/37 return: 36
Hit rate after a number repeats 4 times: 1/37 return: 36

and so on.

Hit rate after a number didn't show for 600 spins: 1/37 return: 36

So explain us how you can turn this a winner with a martingale fucking maths sucker noob.

 

And I am so sure you are all wrong and I am right about this that I can contact the guys at Roulette Xtreme website and ask them to run millions of spins and report for how long numbers slept. If they didn't find sleepers for at least 600 spins I offer you 10,000$. You give me 1000$ if they found them.

You can't refuse big mouth, you are so sure I edited this session, so let's do this, don't run away, be a man.

 

Ok, I have time to waste.
Lets run off 606 spins over and over and over forever (no, I don't have that much free time).
4.1 isn't crazy until you note the number of spins. It's not possible. The list was edited.

Run....least shows....lowest std for 606 spins
1.....7.....-2.35
2.....9.....-1.85
3.....7.....-2.35
4.....10....-1.60
5.....8.....-2.10

Oh this is useless. Lets just run 100,000 spins and find the longest ANY number failed to show.
That's got to back up what the idiot said - no hand picking, no editing... let's go.
Oh I know already there's going to be a 650 spin number in there - don't you ????
Whew (10 minutes later)
100,000 spins, lets see.
Nope.
Three number went to 400 ! That's impressive, I'll admit.
Nothing above 430. Are we even close to 606 ??? In "random" that's impossible, but to Bago it just happened ! Bang... right there... amazing. The impossible happened and he was there to see it and run here to post.
100,000 spins and nothing CLOSE (in math terms - 430 isn't close at all to 606 lol). Nothing.
But you're going to tell me that 606 is possible Sir Anyone ? Really ? Not on a broken wheel, a real casino wheel - maybe Bago's pretend list used a wheel where someone put a piece of cardboard in the #28 slot ? It's possible lol
This is obvious, exactly what I said - the list was edited to remove the 28's.. in the court of "logic" it's the obvious explanation.
And none of that even matters - the ones that "did" go to 400 (3 numbers - once - out of 100,000 spins) had repeaters hitting like MAD (wins). and those 3 numbers that had that terrible run (I wouldn't have had a single chip on any of them during those runs) ended between -.038 and +1.16 std dev.
Sadly to say, his absurd experiment and thread has proven once again what I've always said -
"Random has limits".
Thanks for reading, have a nice day. Watch out - the next might be 945 spins without a number showing !!!!
I'm excited already ! Or maybe a number showing 10 times in a row back to back ? Wows.
In my run, 3 numbers hit 4x in a row once each. That's pretty amazing. But to Bago, that's nothing.
A number can hit 10 times in a row and then sleep for 945 spins.
Who listens to this idiot ? Don't back up what he says Sir Anyone, it's best to step around dog shit and not try to step over it. You know as well as I do he didn't sit down and start recording and LO AND BEHOLD #28 vanished for 606 spins. If you believe this.... no, you don't.

 

Accept the offer big shitty mouth, you are not going to convince anyone with your 600 spins chart. Long term is what matters. But you don't have money so you will never accept my fair offer. I am not affiliated with the RX website, therefore we would have an independant answer. Let's see who tells the truth (Bago) and who tells shit and lies all the time (Turbo).

 

Update !

1 million spins....441
2 million spins....still 441 as the "record"
3 million spins....459 (wow - but no.... not even close statistically to 606)
I can't keep it running, rx is eating up all of my memory now. Maybe I'll do them in separate 1 million spin runs lol
So in closing... 3 million spins and 459 was the tops.
But somehow - somehow.... Bago sat down and behold - 606 spins without a #28.
Amazing. He should play the lottery because the odds of that happening are quickly approaching hitting the powerball lottery lol.
Ok, I'm done. Wasted enough of my time with this idiotic nonsense.
I think I'll go edit the 0 out of those 3 million spins and then post how it actually happened.

 

Yeah idiot, you found 3 numbers sleeping for 400 spins in 100K spins but cannot find a single number sleeping for more than 459 spins with 3 millions spins, what a dickead.

You are wrong and the RX team will confirm this, as soon as I get their reply, it will be posted right here for everybody to realize what a liar and loser you are and always have been.

In the meantime, just found a forum member stating he found a 558 spins sleeper, damn, it smells bad for your reputation Turbo the moron:

https://www.vlsroulette.com/index.php?topic=2085.0

 

Again at VLS:

SPROGY

• Member
• 
• 3

Re: RNG Longest sleep
August 01, 2010, 09:19:59 AM

I don't know which rng you used, but with the . NET System. Random it went over 40 for dozens and over 600 for single numbers. . . but I tried it with 10 or 100 million spins, don't remember exactly

So the winning math really is quite simple, just start betting the farm, once you get a 40 column sleeper.

 

At RF.net

toby1968
December 13, 2007, 8:43pm
Still in Diapers

Posts: 9
Quoted from 913
"Anyone here plays only 1-number?" --- Yeah, me from time to time. I had a nice thread going at one point at a couple other sites (lol) regarding playing just one. My thinking was, the ball can only land on one number so why play 4? or 12? or 18? Here is something I like, played it a few times. Pick one number based on NOTHING. Flat betting. Play that number for 175 spins. The GOAL is 5 wins. Even if you get 5 wins before the 175, keep playing it. Because 175 is quite a few spins, I would be bet $10 or $15 per spin. Ken



mr j, a number can sleep more than 400 spins easely, even 600 spins. It´s a question of how long you test your system.

good luck

 

At forum roulette 30 . com

GameNeverOver:
First thing positive progressions basic premise is that your bet amount goes up when you win. So maybe you got it wrong or stated it wrong, but if you are really using pos. prog. then you would have to try to get a repeat on one number ex. you wager on no.14 and you hit it, then let the wager + winnings on that same number for another spin, if you win you win 36 X 36 = 1296 X your wager. In extreme cases of positive progressions you'll hunt triple cons. hitting on one same number and try to win: 36 X 36 X 36 = 46656 X your wager.

In your case, you are having a soft negative progression and with 300 euro = 30.000 units bankroll you will last only 259 spins and nothing more. And the longest range of one number sleeping is over 600 spins..

Thats why I've asked you do you know what do you do actually..

 

HEY TURBO HOW DOES IT FEEL TO BE THE DUMBEST LIAR AND FULL OF SHIT FORUM MEMBER IN THE ENTIRE GAMBLING INDUSTRY ?! SO WHAT IS YOUR NEXT EXCUSE AFTER THE ONE I EDITED THE SESSION LOL

 

Turbo,

1. Randomness doesn't have any limits other than the sample size. (Example: obviously you can't see ten reds in a row if you only watch nine spins.)

2. While a fluctuation of 4.1 standard deviations may seem large to you, it's only because you haven't really tracked as many spins as some of us have. I have several wheels where numbers have dropped far below even four stds.

3. Yes it's very unusual for a number to go 606 spins without hitting, but it's possible. In my lifetime I've seen such extreme events, but I've likely witnessed 10x as many spins as you have. Twice in my life I've even seen a number hit five times in a row!

Rare events happen. Just look at any reader board and you'll seen an event that no one will likely ever see again...the last 21 numbers hitting in the exact order in which they just hit.

And yes, Bago is still an AS$.

 

Don't gate crash my thread to approve my claims then, be logic.

 

You are not better than those you accuse of silliness, where did you see Double Zero hit in my 1000 spins session moron to assume this is a 00 wheel?.

 

ROFL ROFL ROFL

First, I didn't look at your numbers. Why? Because you are a piece of dog shit and I dont care about your posts.

Second, my 2 examples above have LITTLE to do with you. They have to do with betting on an "unknown" along side a number that is hot. Point was, why WASTE the units? Do you notice a trend here Bago? Not many posters like you. I cant imagine why.

Ken

 

1) You don't care about my posts but you always bite into my thread.
2) Keep your examples of gambler's fallacy systems to yourself or start your own thread. Don't come and pollute my thread, get a life.
3) Only people like you who don't have a life out of the internet care about the likes they get from anonymous posters. This is the last thing I would want because I am normal and have a life, but you make it a priority because as your master turbo, you are failures.