TurboGenius Advantage of Repeaters explained - part 3 - 2020

In this thread I'll post data that can be explored by the readers.

In the previous 2 threads repeaters were covered -
Mainly the first number to get to 1x, 2x, 3x etc.
(Horse race analogy)

In this thread I will post the results of looking at the Top 3 for each of these statistics.
Will it produce "random and unpredictable" results, or will "random be predictable" as I've
always said.

The contents of the image is explained below.



So here is data from the Top 3 numbers to each reach 1 appearance, 2 appearances, and 3
appearances. As we can clearly see, the numbers may change location - but the actual numbers
don't change. At points there are numbers that drop off of the list and others come in -
YET - out of 60 possible locations on the chart (1st, 2nd, 3rd for 1x to 20x) there are
ONLY 11 different numbers that fill the spots.

In the "matches" column, we can clearly see the predictability of how the numbers fall.
Below, in the smaller box - how many numbers from the last column are now members of the
current column...... This is predictable.
The combined (2 of 3) and (3 of 3) matches account for 16 of the possible 20 results !!!
Only 1 time was there a "new" set of 3 numbers to fill the top spots, and this always happens
early on in the data - once more data is collected - as you can see it becomes predictable
in that all 3 repeat or 2 of the 3 repeat in the top 3 spots.

Is this close to being able to say "Such and such number is going to appear soon" ? Yes.
Will you be correct 80% of the time ? Yes.
Is this well beyond what is needed to make a profit ? Yes.

The chart also shows that the numbers reaching 1x, 2x, etc to 20x ALL do so well below
the 1:37 odds and well below the 35 to 1 payout - meaning the player has the advantage at
all times. (see the spin counts at the end and the averages below that)

Now the naysayers can avoid these facts and say "it's random so anything can happen"
but that's been proven to be a lie in only these 3 threads.

Random is INDEED predictable, and the player can have the advantage at all times -
No time machine needed, no voodoo or magic - you can predict the future and win
by using current data as you play.
They have told us that this information isn't important but clearly that is a lie as well.

Thank you once again for reading and further comments will be coming as time permits.
Also everyone stay safe in these times of uncertainty.

 

Results of just completed session at https://roulette-simulator.info/en



Clear and obvious results.
Perhaps it's time to stop calling "random" unpredictable.
But let's not tell the misfits or computer salesmen.

 

. Stay safe yourself mate.

 

Why so few takers ?

 

These are my quotes from October of last year - as you can see now why I made that post
and how it makes sense.

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

 

Thanks Ed for more interesting posts. I think myself and a few others will recognise to some degree the results and patterns you've presented. I'd say these are amongst some your most important examples

I hope everyones doing well and staying safe as can be.

Maybe during these coming months and strange times, some of us that don't usually have time to play about with the stats and methods, will be afforded some luxury time to look into things again. Myself included

 

I read ALL your posts.
I follow the Instructions and try to Repeat the results.

 

I already explained why your data is a fallacy. You assume Roulette is a Horse Race where the leader who is 100 meters ahead the last horse in the final stretch has more probability to win.
This is not the case at all. A horse race is an independant event, yes?. A roulette spin is an independant event, yes?. What you are showing here is data from SEVERAL independant events. You are taking results from several independant events and you take these as ONE ( a horse race ).

If we go to the racetrack and in the first race, horse n°1 wins easily. In the second race, horse n°1 (who is a complete different horse) wins also. With your logic, in the 3rd race, horse n°1 who is a very bad horse at 100/1 has more probability to win the race than other horses who are much better than him?. Of course not. Horse n°1 in the 3rd race has nothing to do with the results of horse n°1 in the first and second race, it won't influence its result whatsoever.

Same for your Roulette spins. Each spin is a different race. In your example n°7 has no more chance to be the winner in the 18th spin (race) than any other number.
IF we had to bet which number will reach the 18th occurence before another number (n°0) which showed for instance only 3 times during the analyzed session, then the Casino would make the odds extremely low for n°7 and very high for n°0. But it is not Roulette! You are re-inventing a game here.

 

Hello Bago, thanks for the reply.
As my biggest (maybe) adversary most of the time - maybe I can clear up your comments for you and you'll begin
to see things differently. Then again you may not, but either way it's a good way to help others learn and I always welcome
a critic to post and discuss their point of view.

First I'd like to go over your comments.

The horse race analogy isn't about horses first off - it's just an example. As I said, you also have to inject the rule that each horse moves randomly (horses don't do this, it's just to give the reader a reference). Maybe some people took it too literally and try to use how an actual horse runs down a track instead of thinking of them moving randomly, that's fine - I could have used a better analogy.
In this case - yes. The horse who is 100 meters ahead has a better chance to win than a horse that has just barely left the starting point.
I've proven this and displayed it in other threads so really no reason to jump back into it. A horse closer to the finish line, moving randomly (not moving or moving ahead slowly or moving ahead quickly - randomly) will indeed win the race over a horse that is far behind.

Yes. All of the steps in the race are independent steps in the overall race. Combining independent events into one is called a "session" -
this is what players play when they bet. One spin at a time (independent) with the goal of being in profit at the end.
I have to once again point to the 1960's video on random that has been posted multiple times.
The independent event (the random decay) is unpredictable - it is random as a single event and nothing you can do or creative way
to chart it makes this single random event predictable. The video showed this clearly with examples.
Now when the completely unpredictable events were combined (a session) - every 10 random events resulted in 1 click in the
tally column in the 10ths space. This turned out to be much better, not yet predictable though but certainly not chaos like the
single individual events were.
The 100ths column though was incredibly predictable, so much so - (re-watch the video) that anyone could accurately predict the counter
ticking off values.
At it's base it was random and could not be predicted - the "session" however because as predictable as can be. It ticked away
in a predictable fashion like the seconds hand on a clock. I hope that is understood.

You're completely right - but that isn't what's happening here. Going from 1x to 2x to 3x is not a bunch of separate races - it's all 1 race.
Sure, to make it easier - think of it as laps in a single horse race. All of the horses move randomly - and look at the data I provided, or you
can run your own, it's easy.
Instead of 1x, 2x, 3x, use laps.


Horse 7 won the 8th lap, 9th lap, 10th lap, 11th lap, 12th lap, 13th lap.......still within the same race.
Horse 5 is close behind and has come across the laps right behind the lead horse 7 laps now. The third place
position is switching around some - because the farther back you go in the pack, the harder it is to have reliable
predictions.
So here we are - they are all still running and coming around to complete the next lap....
MY prediction is that horse 7 will win. My better prediction is that horse 7 or horse 5 will win. I bet accordingly.
In roulette you can bet, not bet or change your bet on every single lap.
Will I be right ? Of course I will.
According to your reply - ANY horse could just up and pass them all and move into the leader spot - this is not
how random works, test it yourself.
So this little image above - what horse will come in 3rd in the 14x column had it went on ? 13
What horse will come in 2nd, 3rd in the 15x column ? 5 and 13
On and on we go making accurate predictions.
The "matches" column in my original post show how many times 0,1,2 or all 3 numbers repeat in the next cycle.
This comes out to 2 and 3 matches accounting for 16 out of the 19 results. Predictable.
Now you can come back and say "Fine, you know what horse but not WHEN".
I do know "when". The chart also shows that the first place horse crosses the finish line 23.7 spins
(better than 1 in 35 is required to win..... we have it)
The second place horse crosses the finish line 24.05 spins (easily beating 1 in 35) and the third horse
24.6 - better than 1 in 35.
We have a prediction that is accurate 80% of the time and happens at a rate better than the house
payout. This wraps it up.
You might be amazed to see how many positions (4th, 5th, 6th, etc) all happen below 1 in 35, at what point this stops -
and how horses far back have no chance of being a leader (cold numbers) because in order to achieve this, they would
have to appear at a massive deviation above normal which doesn't happen in random.

But it does and it will win - I covered this above. There are times where the numbers in certain positions change, yes.
It is predictable enough that a horse will win the next lap though ? Yes - at 80% accuracy. Math shows this and testing
demonstrates and proves this.

The casino can only produce random outcomes and make sure that the payout is less than the chances of you winning.
As it turns out - the chance of you winning any individual spin is in their favor, as spins go on it changes to the player's favor.
Just as in the single blips of the counter in the random video can't be predicted, but the combined results were predictable.

Their best option (as it's been touted.... I wonder why....hmm..) is for a player to bet one time on a even money bet.
There are videos like this and math/gambling gurus who say this is the best chance you have to win. 1 spin - all or nothing
on a 50/50 bet. "The longer you play, the longer you lose" mentality. This is great advice if you want people to lose (and they do).
What I described above in the thread defeats any counter measure they could throw into the game.
Adding a 000 or a 000 and 0000 to the wheel won't matter. The only thing they could do is lower the payout to
24 to 1 for example. You win 24 on a bet instead of 35.
This too won't work because I have ways around that based on the exact same logic.

But in the end, it's up to people what they want to do. They can also ignore the obvious or go along with what's been
drilled into our heads "you can't win unless you're lucky" and "the house edge is too large" or insert them all here because
everyone is constantly told there is no way to win (other than bias wheels and computers of course lol.... those guys...)

 

To anyone who tests this and wants to post :
"I bet the top 3 numbers at all times and it lost !!" - please do a little bit of thinking first.

Playing just the lead number, or playing all 3 of the top 3 numbers all the time WILL not work.
You're going to figure out how to do it though and then you can either keep it to yourself or not.
If you need to use a negative progression, or you're betting all 3 every spin - you are doing it wrong.
I just wanted to throw that in because I already see a post coming with the quote I used above.
Make predictions and select your numbers properly.

 

I think this is a good comment. Providing 'parameters' of what not to do stops people pursuing a dead end path, without of you spelling out your method of play.

 

I'm expecting the "You're just dangling a carrot in front of people again" nonsense.

If that's the case, this is the biggest - most obvious carrot in the history of vegetables lol.

I think explanation and examples should be enough to motivate people to look into something and do their own
testing - then they'll see the same results. The misfits don't like that approach but that's how it is.

 

I think other questions that will come will be; in a B&M environment nobody can wait until x6,x7,x8 for the consistent hot numbers to present themselves to start betting. But I guess thats not the point where you 'start'. Thats the end of the game and you should have had those in your selection earlier.

From the same observation, the lead number might of reached x8 for example and may very well reach x9 before others. But the frequency has slowed for that hot number. It has its lead 'in the bag'. In the time it takes for the x8 leader to reach x9, the frequency of 'other' hot numbers outstrips the race leaders frequency. We have to know when to drop that bet. The race leader could keep its lead even with 60 spins passing by, while all the action is happening in the chasing pack.

 

Turbo, again, you are analyzing the data afterwards, indeed, you would get a 1/24 hit rate if you knew before the 37 spins cycle which numbers will appear and which won't. You are just doing the law of the third with the leading number. But WHILE YOU BET ON IT you are getting a 1/37 hit rate on each following spins.
A number can stay the leading number in a session and have a hit rate worse than 1/37 and you are betting on it and losing while other numbers are hitting like crazy and you are not on it. Overall, there is no advantage chasing the hottest number or coldest number. If it was so simple to beat Roulette................

Anyone can test and calculate the intervals of the leading number, it will be 37 spins in the long run.

 

HA HA! Bago. Jinx. I think we said similar things at the exact same time!
But we have to remember to theres a 'group' in play. Not just one number.

 

Indeed. But a group of numbers will make things worser, if the holygrail applied on one number does not bring an edge, it won't for other numbers picked the same way. It's like saying there are proven three biased numbers on a wheel (n°1: 1/30 hit rate - n°2: 1/32 - n°3: 1/31) but you won't profit if you play only one number... of course you would.

 

I showed this clearly above in the original post (image)
We went to 20x for the top 3 locations.
Did 20 numbers appear in the results ? No, it was only 11.
Did I have to guess from 37 possible numbers ? No, I only had to guess from 11.
One number even appeared on the list 13 times ! A lot of others were at 6 times repeating on the list.

I can't make it any more clearer because that's crossing the line.

If someone can't win with these completely predictable results - results that always happen well before 35 spins which
is required to make a profit - then they shouldn't look at roulette as anything other than entertainment.

To me - that is like someone handing you a golden goose - but you'd prefer to collect it's feathers from the ground
because feathers are pretty, and no one can predict within 10 seconds when the egg will fall out.
I've spelled it out clearly - I hope you decide to look into it more, if you don't then what I've posted and said is
the best I'm willing to do.

 

No, I just tell to myself that if there was a way to benefit from the leaders, the game would have been shut down centuries ago, people much smarter than me and you would have found it. And yes I have tested for fun this system long time ago when a member played this system at Gambler's Glen, and I realized you are losing overtime playing flat bet. But probably for you it needs a progression, despite the fact this miracle number offers a supposed 1 in 24 hit rate

 

First of all thank you Turbogenius for the effort you've already put into explaining your theory (and "almost" your method).
Reading all the relative threads I've already confirmed that I've been testing your hot number theory the "right" way all along (since yout CC days).

However allow me to get into specifics:
Lets say that in a system that you play as soon as a 3x has appeared and you start with 1 unit then you add the next number that has hit 3x and another one untill you have 3 "top dogs".
Also lets say that your using positive progression each time one of the top dogs hit - Martingale would be enough?
I've done numerous tests so far that confirm your findings on hot numbers being hot enough to give profit.

However there are some times that these top dogs (as soon they climb on top) stay there and dont perform above expectation - other numbers keep on climbing but none of them pass them on the race and since you're alreay high on your positive progression you are actively chewing on your bankroll.

Do you have a failsafe in case of that happening? Do you drop the top performing numbers even if no other number has climbed on top?

 

Yes he is using a positive or aggressive progression because the number(s) that appeared 3 times in a session still have a 1/37 odds to be the next winner(s). Sure on some sessions the aggressive progression will make a profit you would not have made flat betting, but the day the hot numbers do not stay hot, you will lose big and never recover.