TurboGenius Working on TG's ideas

If the method worked, then you wouldn't need to set win goals. Blindly picking the same numbers of number to bet on works just as well.

Unfortunately, none of Turbo's methods work any better than random guessing.

 

Yep that’s why I said target is up to you. I just set that target when I’m playing online. I don’t really enjoy sitting at a screen clicking numbers all day and can distract you from more important things. I’m in front of a screen all day in my day job enough as it is. In real casino I don’t have a target. I play until it’s time to leave or I have other things to do.

 

Hmm i already think what you mean. But still like a puzzle. Can you give more clue ? Really want to be a pro player. Thanks

 

Stop smoking the carpet...

 

And it gets safer and safer to raise our bets

 

So far from my "horse racing" tests best time to quit is around 6x lap (usually that's 3rd 37 spin cycle) as the longer you play the larger the gaps between hits for top numbers.
Still no guarantee you'll be in profit by then playing flat or with prog but then again I am probably doing it wrong

 

But what to do if the number changes?

 

And those gaps can be measured? On average we get a hit 24ish spins from 1x to 20x ...(is this constant or not ? )

What if we calculate each average as the hits come ? From 1x to 6x its mostly much faster right ? How does that affect the averages coming up .....

You'll figure it out

 

Yes its much faster in earlier "laps" and the end result if one goes as far as 20x comes down usually to 24 on first column so the leader.
I would not call it "hits" since we have no way to be on every leader (I mean you can but sometimes it would mean covering a lot of numbers, for example not uncommon to have no 3x in first 37 spins, meaning chasing leader could cost a lot being on 12+ numbers, I guess that can also be measure over a number of cycles and sessions how many 2x appear on average and max before 3x shows and so on) although majority of sessions will have 2-3 different leaders max within first 5x-10x laps, from 1 to 5x its quite common to have more than 2 different leading numbers.
I'll pay more attention to early averages across a number of sessions. Thanks

 

@Gigi666 Many years ago I compiled these statistics examining 1M spin sequences generated in Excel [RNG]:

3x Repeater [Single-0 Wheel]
First Occurrence - Avg. Spin: #21.0460; Min. Spin: #3; Max. Spin: #56
Vying 2x Contenders - Avg. Value: 4.4483; Min. Value: 1; Max. Value: 22
Hit in 1st 37-spin cycle: 98.3950%

3x Repeater [Double-00 Wheel]
First Occurrence - Avg. Spin: #21.4049; Min. Spin: #3; Max. Spin: #60
Vying 2x Contenders - Avg. Value: 4.4990; Min. Value: 1; Max. Value: 26
Hit in 1st 38-spin cycle: 98.5945%

 

Thank you for posting this, although it seems smaller risk for higher reward lies with later "laps" and I am focusing mainly on 3x to 12x or so, your average 2x contenders is close to my much smaller test sample so far 4.63 avg and max value 14, first occurrence spin 18. I am also only analysing real wheel spins.
Also the average number of contenders goes down very close to 2 as the laps go by.

Would you have stats for 4x and so on by any chance from your stats for single zero?

 

Remember what Denzie said about "averages"? And how you can apply very specific progressions to them towards the goal of winning more sessions than losing?

Remember what Turbo said about numbers not needing to exceed their expected hitrates in order for you to profit?

Lot of good meat for you guys who are searching to chew on in the results above.

I can verify that despite the data coming from Excel, which has flaws within its core RNG implementation, the numbers are close enough to 50,000+ live wheel spins to be utilized in your research.

Keep grinding and you'll get where you need to go.

 

What do you mean by this?

 

Meaning exactly that. He just needs the numbers to be heading towards their expected rate

 

So regression to the mean?

 

Look at the stats provided by Annunaki, see whats expected and try to take advantage of that.

 

The ratios will move towards their long term expectations, even though the numeric difference may be much much larger.
In short, what you're doing won't work. It's a very very old idea rooted in the gambler's fallacy.

 

Dr. Sir Killjoy..

 

The same old ideas... They're all trapped in the box. Mako, Denzie, etc...Not a single original idea.

 

There are no original ideas in roulette, it's been around too long. Math people have been trying to beat it for 200 years, really really good math people. But it was too brilliantly designed to be beaten in the conventional way. It will never be done with a head-on attack, it has to be done in a roundabout sneak attack where you are in and out in and out.