Roulette 37 people go into a casino - and the house edge appeared.

So the last time I did this, the thread was derailed (somewhat by me, somewhat not) - and
I had made a calculation error which took attention away from the point I was trying to make.
I decided to re-do this the proper way and post the results.

So here are the "rules" or lack of...
There are 37 players, each player has his/her own number to play and they play
that number only, every spin.
No progression - flat betting only. No skipping spins, no qualifications, etc.
Just every spin they bet their number for a total of 3,000 spins.
They flat bet $25.00 per spin.
Here are the results when the 3,000 spins are completed :



14 players would have won - flat betting their specific number over 3,000 spins played.
So you can assume that you have a 37.83% chance of winning by simply flat betting one number
for this long. The total that the winners made was $71,400.00 (or 2,856 units).
This is 204 units profit average per person.
You can also assume that you have a 62.16% chance of losing flat betting one number
for this long. The total that the losers lost was $146,400.00 (or 5,856 units).
This is 254.61 units lost average per person.
The "house" made $75,000.00 (as expected) or 3,000 units in total.
=====================================================

Worth noting of course is that EVERYONE (aside from #14) made a profit and
had they stopped at that point, they would have left in profit.
That means 36 players flat betting would ALL have walked out a winner.
This means if you flat bet a single number, you have a 97.3% chance of winning
your playing session, instead of 37.83% if you never stopped.
Also, when you factor in #14's outcome of all 3,000 spins - and combined it
with the profits that all other 36 players achieved (had they stopped on any profit)..
the entire group won as a whole making it a 100% success rate overall.
In the big picture - over 3,000 spins of possible played spins in the session - the
entire group of 37 people won - if the profits are split (of course).
All player in total made a profit of $9,375.00 (or 375 units) for a split of
$253.38 per person.

But here's the house edge... which I found interesting.
If you flat bet and stop on any profit - you had a 97.3% chance of walking out
a winner. You have a 2.7% chance of walking out a loser. I won't post the house edge
for a single zero table - but it's 2.7%

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


6,861 spins total (all players combined) and $9,375.00 profit total (or 375 units)

Hopefully in this format and explanation (no errors this time) the info
will be useful.
I see a good argument in here for "random has limits".. but that's for another
thread in the works.

If you want a suggestion on how to use this info to win, I would simply
suggest to play a number, increase the bet 1 unit on any win better than
37 spins and drop it back to 1 unit on any win more than 37 spins and stop when
in profit. Even the doomed #14 would have ended this test in profit that way
because it was (at one point) climbing right back to the expected hit rate
as it's going to do (or "drifting" if you prefer). (on spin 2,239 it was only down
7 units down and 1 win would have made it end in profit...)
=======================================================

Cheers

 

That is fascinating actually, even after testing tens of thousands of live spins with various methods the past year I would never have guessed that every number aside from one was at some point profitable with as low of a total spin count as 3000.

I would have thought the total spins would need to be much higher to get back to 0 STD.

I'm also surprised at how many numbers achieved profit at low spin counts, 28 of them managed it within just a few hours worth of spins...

It basically validates the minimum interval concept as being consistent, even over shorter periods of time. Great way to illustrate a variety of concepts in a different way Turbo, love it.

 

Why the fool suggests to play only 1 number if all numbers are giving a profit in his mad brain? Is it a hidden way to avoid a permanent ban from Casinos if you are putting a chip on the entire table?. LOL!

 

Actually if it was on 30K spins, results would be the same. (about 1chance/3)

But you're looking at final results, that you can see quickly on a simulation. I can tell that face to face with the casino and with 25 per straight, when people will have to bear swings, many of them will poo in their pants... Less numbers played, greaters swings are. Can you imagine a player lose several consecutives days with a 25$ per straight? Testing&quick results are different from casino with a long time notion, where psychological aspect is hard to bear.

 

Well, it does deteriorate (flat betting a single number only) over a larger and larger sample.
This is because the house edge eats away more and more over time... so using this for example
over 30k might results in 7 people winning (for example), or over 50k spins 1 person winning (for example).
The easiest to see this is using 1 cycle of spins - where 24 people would win (on average).
As the spins increase, the amount of winners flat betting their own number will decrease.
This is resolved by not playing every spin (for example). Stopping when in profit or a progression,
a few ways to use a bet selection to win as well - in this case it's just data - there's no
bet selection, every player is playing their own number, every spin no matter what happens.

The biggest enemy of any player is themself. It's not the measly house edge which is the tiny thing
everyone seems to focus on. Sure over time - and with no real bet selection (other than grandma's
lucky numbers and birthdays lol) - the house edge makes it harder and harder to come out ahead.
That's why bet selection is so important. In the other thread I'm pretty sure I showed how a
good bet selection does not compare to "just play any random numbers and you'll get the
same results" nonsense.
But yes - the player is the problem.
Lack of discipline is one. There are lots of ways a player could "poo their pants" and get scared
when they're not doing something right - maybe anyone with those symptoms shouldn't be
playing roulette and stick with the pretty lights and sounds of slot machines.

 

Yes but at a time, when they haven't reach any profit yet, most of them could think that they could be the 14 (in your example). I could see also a problem in their mind because they couldn't play all consecutives spins, then they'd start to believe that they missed the right time when they were out the casino (till reach the profit) etc etc...

 

One way to test this (or get data) is to run rx (or another simulator) and
place 1 unit on ALL straight up locations.
For the first cycle of spins you can just remove numbers as they appear.
Then, when the second cycle begins (you'll need to know how many times each number
has appeared in total) - remove any numbers that achieve 2 wins in total.
When this cycle is done you'll have less numbers of course - the 3rd cycle
would mean removing any number now that achieves 3 wins.
etc, etc. You'll see that in each cycle there are numbers that make this goal and
end in profit (on their own individual basis).

In the sample I did - ALL numbers did this, aside from #14 which at one point was
"right there", a single win away from being in profit - but it didn't make it.
In the end it still didn't drag down the other 36 numbers.

 

True - but that's not a math problem, it's just a personal discipline problem.
It should be possible to "avoid" being that #14 person

In the other thread (the original one) my goal was to get people to think.
How can you ensure you are one of those 14 people who won ?
Can you be on 3,4 or 5 of the top winners ? How can this be done ?
I've demonstrated that it's possible (not perfection, not even close) to back
the best performing (hot) numbers at the end of the session and this is
one way where you "can't" lose. I also showed how you lose nothing by not
betting on the worst performers.. etc.
Everything I post tends to loop around and cover the same things in a different way.
I thought the original thread was good to make people think on how to
be one of those top players - because it's possible to do.
The same goes for this thread - along with the fact that each player (aside from 1)
could have just ended their session in profit (in this test).

 

Test results of just 306 spins, consecutive order from a single wheel, Spielbank Duisburg Table 13. Includes dealer changes, etc., actual results for that particular day's worth of spins. Bi-directional.

Basically as if you had sat down at the table and played for the day, betting every single number with a $25 chip, and removing the chip at first profit or taking whatever loss occurred at spin 306 if no profit ever occurred.

Really striking...amazing even...how the numbers match nearly exactly for Turbo's much larger 3000 spin example.

And this was just flat betting the $25 single unit chip, not taking into account any +1/-1 progression, which would improve it...

 

The silly analogy time again.
Why do I keep using horses ??

Lets say there are 37 horses and you can bet on them at any time (of course).
Let's say the horses are the players 1-37 in the test above.
At any time you can throw in your bets on any of them - and
there are 14 winners to choose from... bet on 1 of them, bet a few of them..
Anyone should be able to win based on the session data as it's playing out.
You can also change your bet(s) at any time, on any spin even...
It just requires thinking how this can be done.
But that's just my horse racing analogy again rearing (lol) it's head.

 

What you're really doing is curve fitting when to quit at the optimum time. That's the king problem with addicted gamblers. "If would have quit when.."

Hindsight is 20/20 as they say. If only you had the luxury of looking forward and backwards in time when playing outside of pretend mode.

 

@TG >> Use geese next time please.

 

Some could call it....

"predictable".

lol, just kidding - have to give those people on "ignore" something to post about.
We all know there's nothing predictable about roulette - despite all of the
predictable things that happen predictably.

 

I've been reading and rereading your material til I'm blue in the face and there's a couple things that you must be wrong about or I'm either too dumb to see or figure out that I'm missing. You say any number that doesn't show is a potential sleeper...and you lose nothing by not betting on it... I AGREE! 1000℅ TRUE!!! But then we have a new problem don't we? We do unfortunately, Let's say I sit down and start a cycle of 38 spins(American) and #18 shows first, well by your logic from what I think I understand, I already have a statistical advantage. WHY? Because I KNOW 12 NUMBERS WILL NOT SHOW and by not betting a single chip on them I LOSE NOT ONE PENNY ON THEM and as a added bonus I know for a fact that THERE WILL BE 12 REPEATERS and #18 is now in the POTENTIAL repeaters column at least for this cycle. But this is where the problem comes. I call it the Turbo Sleeper lol let me give you an example
from an actual cycle..

18<------- Potential Repeater/Not a Sleeper
26<------- Potential Repeater/Not a Sleeper
22
23
27
28
8
10
6
14
24
5
36
26<-------(Dammit should of bet that one)
31
16
26<-------(Double Dammit)
22
14
25
33
15
12
10
32
35
27
0
28
22
17
30
27
10
24
7
4
22

#18 loses -37 units(Turbo Sleeper)

Turbo Sleeper: a number that shows in a cycle but fails to show above average after its appeared once.
But what made #26 so special over #18 in the beginning?
The point I'm trying to make is that by avoiding betting on numbers that don't show up at all we also avoid losing any units on them by not betting on it in the first place but by betting on a "potential repeater" it can lose in the same fashion but a different style by what I call a "Turbo Sleeper" (btw this is not a knock to you TG I just thought the name stuck lol.)
So unless we can identify specifically what "potential repeaters" are MORE SPECIAL than others then I don't see how there can be a way to predict at a better rate than the unfair 35:1 payout that we all face.

For example let's say
18,26,22,23 come out on cycle #2 and me and Turbo are playing at the same table and I look at him and say "18,26,22,23 are potential repeaters we should bet them right? "

I would expect him to say "well that is true.. they are but only 26, and 22 is worth betting on because XY reasons"..
What are these reasons???

Another one is the concept of the numbers at certain milestones..

This the wisdom of a number can't show 3 times without showing twice

Can't show twice without showing once etc

Here is the problem though, let's say I'm betting that a # will get to 4 shows and there's only 2 candidates that make sense to bet on, for simplicity sake let's say those numbers are 0 and 00 they are both at 3 shows. From what I understand, TG says that my odds have improved to only 2 potential winners but I still have the 35:1 payout which would be a humongous advantage but again we have a problem don't we... I can bet on 0 and 00 to get to 4 shows and it does make sense because they are closest to the finish line but wouldn't that finish line be irrelevant because let's say #36 has not shown up yet and the next spin it shows.. wait a minute I thought I only had two potential winners? So if numbers that are at no shows turn into 1 shows or 2 shows turn into 3 shows then we lose or bet which basically just means 37 to 1, or in our case 17 to 1 since were both 0 and 00 to get to 4 shows.

Now again, if me and Turbo were both at the table and 0 and 00 get to 3 shows and I say "we should bet for them to get to 4 right? "

He might say true, but only 00 because XY reasons...


What are these reasons? I HAVE NO CLUE, and if you are reading you probably have no clue either unless you're TG of course and until we fill in this missing blank I think we are no better betting our birthdays every spin. And I don't think we'll get this answer from Turbo because giving us that answer could possibly mean explaining what could give everything away in a public forum which is a conflict of interest. I get it TG. I'm not asking for a step by step explanation or a tutorial video on how to play the Turbo system, just a nudge in the right direction to know why a location has a PROBABLE chance of going hot besides its shown at least once which doesn't seem to hold up. But if you think about it what he's doing it's really simple. Just bet the numbers that will show above expected and you will win. Will you win flat betting, by betting those numbers? Yes. Will you win using a negative progression on those numbers? Yes. Probably more. Will you win using a positive progression on those numbers? Yes. Probably a LOT more. So just like in TG's example of the 14 players that came out ahead by betting on numbers that were above std deviation we know there's smart numbers to play in a session(+std deviation) and bad numbers to play in a session(below std AND at average/house edge)

In Turbos example, it comes down to what made numbers 22/23/4/25/20/33/10/36/7/12/21/17/34/11 so special? Sure we know AFTER the fact that they were the smart numbers to play but what tells you that ahead of time? There has to be some sort of sequence, pattern or way the repeats are forming specifically that tells TG these "potential repeaters" are trash and these have TRUE potential or something of that nature. Until we have real reasons that are based in math that we can use to know certain numbers are better than others in a particular session then we are going in circles. So either TG is the world's most successful troll or he really is a genius and I'm just too much of a simpleton to see what's right in front of me. Hope you go through this Turbo, I'm not giving up at all just saying what I think a lot of us are thinking. I just had to and up and say it

 

Trellw24,

Didn't you follow the Turbo logic? "anyone starting at any point would win using something that doesn't lose."

 

I replied in your thread.

 

There are no special numbers and there isn't any way to predict. Turbo says it's nonsense that no bet selections are better than random bets, but it's true. Hopefully you'll realize it without spending years trying to find one. The only selections which work are those based on physical variables.

 

It is incomplete Caleb: "anyone starting at any point betting whatever number would win using something that doesn't lose." All those years chasing biased wheels when you could have picked a random number on a random wheel and finish any session with profits. The solution was too obvious that's why noone figured it out since the 17th century LOL!.

 

Maybe, but this doesn't explain why casinos will just ban someone who is continuously winning for that sole reason. If its for business reasons, then this doesn't make sense because they would just let that person keep playing regardless of their results because they have the edge.

 

The main premise behind the core of what you believe regarding the game is that certain events must always occur within certain time frames.

And by isolating and focusing on those events and time frames, it makes their arrival predictable. Which then in turn provides the player utilizing them an advantage versus both random outcomes and the house edge.

We all see clear examples of events that occur within certain timeframes in Roulette, from roughly 24 uniques with 12 repeats and 12 unhits after a 37 spin cycle happening repeatedly, to numbers that have hit four times having had to hit three times previously.

And if the average player attempts to make use of that information, targets those events by say betting around 24/12/12 in a cycle, or betting that all numbers that have hit twice will provide a single third hit, the bets will fail...or profit won't be achieved in time before large losses accrue.

The difference between you and most others who have pursued solutions to the game is that you've identified multiple events that occur repeatedly outside of the well known examples I've mentioned, and then developed precise ways to target those events with accurate bet selection and appropriate money management to generate a profit more often than not.

For even the most die-hard cynics it must be clear that the way you look at the game is unique.