TurboGenius When does it lose ?

Since you have zero interest about his method and only want to know how his 4000 spins session perform, then join me to let Turbo know not to set his account to public, just post the graph. The graph serves your purpose right? Who else is with me, not looking for handout? Lol

Don't bash with who am I to tell Turbo what to do.... Lol

 

Because that’s not a demonstration is it? Graphs of play can’t be scrutinised and in the era of photoshop they’re meaningless.

All I’m asking is - is this happening or not? Not too much to ask is it?

 

If more people ask "if this is happening or not" then add if it's a loser I understand...

Crowd ask is a form of pressuring?

Graph is useless in this era of photoshop...

All sorts of pressuring. Lol

 

I am at the point I could give a flying fuck about sharing anything. Better things to do with my time.

Anyone who has any insights gets attacked. It's like the money's and the bananas. Anyone new gets attacked for showing how to grab the banana.

 

Turbo said himself he was going public, so I’m not sure what your point is.

Here is a graph of me getting to 80k on flat bet only. Zero progression. This account was public so anyone could take a look.

That evidence is now long gone so it’s now utterly worthless, I could have just made that up couldn’t I?

 

I don't care if Turbo sets his account to public or not. But he DID say he was going to post the rules of how he's playing, regardless of whether it tanks. If he does that then members who believe that sleepers give an advantage can test the principle for themselves. Of course, there are many ways a principle can be applied, and if it's the principle that's important (as LF has said) then any particular method using that principle should work to some degree. But of course, if Turbo doesn't post the rules and members use some system which uses the sleeper principle but loses (and Ka2 has shown many times that it does), suddenly it's not because the principle doesn't work, it's because they don't have the "secret sauce". In which case, it's not the principle which makes the system work after all. Classic "bait and switch". And so in this way the charade continues on and on and on...

 

I wrote many times to those who still believe in systems betting...

If you bash members who know how to win, these members just stop posting. That's the consequence.

You are the loser.

Ofc naysayers, losers, those who have given up, and SirNoOne, MJ and Benas are expected to bash, they do it for their own agenda.

But new winner members may not know about what's going on on forums. And old members who finally found it are not encouraged to help because of this aggressive attitude.

Remember, anyone who claim he has found the winning systems bet is a suspect scammer. Always.

Get it people.

 

aww.... poor little snowflake. And since when does showing that something doesn't work equate to being attacked? If you want an echo chamber you'd better join a private forum.

 

Good grief, how many times? I’m not bashing him! He said he was going public!

 

I expect... But why do they spend tons of time in discussions about... what probably nothing change to the good side .
Why not start to discuss something, that can give at least some benefit?

What I see in forums - usually part of people do really war against all knowledge!!!

 

Benas, tbh idk.

I would have given up long ago. Do something else.
Instead of trying to run a sub-10second 100m.

The truth is most people will not run sub-10s ever.

Hard truth that hurts.

I can understand all the anger, temper and bashing.

If I start my naysaying it's worse than SirNoOne, MJ and you combined. I can be a f... king pest up your arse. Lol

 

Strange. I see all the bashing and anger coming from the system players. Look at TwoUp's recent posts. Us mathboyz are just calmly and patiently trying to explain the facts.

 

With all respect:

Yes 55% of the time you get 2 or more hits in 69 spins.

But if you combine then with the sessions with 1 or 0 hits in 69 spins. The odds come back at 1:37.

So I dont see the advantage???

It is not like 55% you win 1 unit and 45% you lose 1???

 

If you post once, perhaps another to make clear then yes you are trying to help.

When you start arguing, insisting, prolonging the argument(s), discrediting then that's not helping anymore.

And you do this on multiple forums. For many years. That's the main thing you post.

It's not about the facts anymore.

I question your motive.

Get it MJ.

 

You can't have one without the other. The house edge is fixed and depends on the relationship between the payout and the number of pockets, so it's silly to say that you only pay the HE on a win. If there were only 36 pockets and the payout remained 35:1 then there would be no HE, but because there are 37 pockets AND the payout is only 35:1, it's not fair. The HE owes as much to the number of pockets as it does to the short payout. On average you don't get a win often enough for the payout to be fair means the same thing as on a win you get paid less than you should. To argue that one or the other interpretation is the "correct" one is just semantic nit-picking.

 

That session ended with 4,451 spins and with +$11,079.00 (so minus the initial 3k
it won +$8,079.00) making the end results per spin +1.81 units per spin profit.

I'll post how I played it but without some modifications I wouldn't suggest doing it.
It peaked at +$26,137 at spin 3,989 and then began to decline for the last 462 spins.

Will post the info when I get home later.
Cheers.

 

You're no mathboyz. You can't even count to 7.

I'll keep throwing this binomal distribution calculation in your face, 3 flips of a coin, all possibilities laid out for everyone to see:

HHH (3 heads)
HHT (2 heads)
HTH (2 heads)
HTT (1 head)
THH (2 heads)
THT (1 head)
TTH (1 head)
TTT (0 heads)

When we ask how many of sequences above have at least 1 head you say the answer is 3. And then you claim the other 4 rows with heads dont exist and are excluded.

I say the answer is 7 and quite obviously this is true. There are 7 possible sequences where a head appears at least once, and every sequence is equiprobable. In any 3 flips of a coin we will see at least one head 7/8 of the time. This is exactly what the binomial distribution calculation tells us.

The above applies equally to spinning a roulette wheel 69 times and seeing 2 hits. We will have many more rows as each row is a possible sequence of 69 spins. But most importantly 56% of those rows will have 2 or more hits on single number. You hate that this is true and want to limit it to just 2 hits so you can exclude all the rows that have more than two hits just like you do with flipping 3 coins.

You say no, no no, and spout nonsense, when any child can see you're plainly wrong. Quite simply YOU CANNOT COUNT, or won't admit you're wrong because of your agenda.

You are not even close to having a shred of credibility when it comes to math or integrity.for that matter. Schooled on WoV with head up derrière.

 

And since when does the truth of an argument depend on the motives of the one who is making it? It doesn't of course. And the only reason I keep doing it is because the same old systems and false beliefs keep coming up, partly because the same group of self-appointed roulette gurus perpetuate them. Newbies often don't know any better, and they deserve an alternative "point of view".

 

Sorry, your explanation don't convince me.

I wrote, either you're a naive idiot or part of the scam.

 

I have done the math you recommended. All true, no doubt. Yet I can't wrap my head around the practical application here. I did another test: Check the last 69 spins, pick the unhits, play them for 69 spins, not adding and removing during the session. It did pretty well for around 1500 spins, but again the hit rate went down to 2.70% per number played. This way I was sure that if there are any hits, I won't lose any, especially the hit on the first spin (the +35u you mentioned).

Am I using it in the wrong way?

I had another idea: play it like an EC, but with more than 50% probability. Not sure how tho.

PS: @TwoUp , I can barely hear you in this crazy shit show. Hope you keep posting and answering questions.