Roulette Undeniable proof for the "repeaters"

Sorry I should add that one would be using a progression!

If you were not using a progression and stayed longer. It could be a situation where you lose 9 out of 10 spins for a few hours before you start to get on a winning streak.

 

Hi everyone

This is my first post on this forum. I have been a regular contributor to Roulette Forum CC under a different username (I had to use a different name on this forum because my preferred name was taken).

Obviously this thread caught my eye because Turbo had authored it, but it also stood out because I found the instructions very easy to understand. I had previously followed Turbo’s Horse Racing Analogy thread closely. I spent a lot of time running tests on this method, but I didn’t have much success. Unfortunately, I never really understood what I was doing, therefore I could never verify if my results were accurate, and I eventually gave up in frustration.

To reiterate, I decided to put some time into this thread because I found the instructions easy to follow.

On page one of this thread, Turbo provided a 90 game sample. To be consistent, my testing also spanned 90 games. Yes, I realise it’s a very small sample size, but it’s the best I could do. All games were tested in Roulette Simulator. My base unit was one (1). If I lost a game, I added one base unit (+1) to the next game. When I won a game, I dropped back one unit (-1). Or, if at a new high I reset the bet to one unit (1). As everyone knows, it’s quite common for a single dozen to sleep for multiple spins. In the situation where I have already recorded two results and I am waiting for the final result to show, you need to be realistic and set a limit for how long you’re prepared to wait for the final dozen to hit. I decided to set the limit to three spins. If a hit hadn’t been recorded in three spins, then it was counted as a loss (L). This makes sense. Yes, you might miss out on the occasional win, but it is good practice to contain any losses or protect any winnings.

Results of 90 games:

WLL
LLL
WWW
WLW
WWL
WWL
LWL
LWW
WWL
WWL
LLW
LWL
LLL
LWL
WWW
LLL
WWL
WLL
WWL
LWW
WWW
WWL
WLW
LWW
LWW
WLL
WLL
WWW
LWW
LLL
LLW
WWL
WWL
WWW
LWL
WWL
WLW
WLL
WWW
LWL
WLW
WLL
WLW
LLL
LWL
LLW
LWL
LLL
LLW
WLL
WWW
LWW
LWL
WLL
LLW
WWL
LWL
LWW
WLW
LLL
WLL
WWL
LLL
LLW
WWW
LLL
LLL
LWL
WLL
LLW
WLW
WWL
WWW
WLL
WLL
LWL
LWL
LWL
LLL
WWW
WWL
WLL
WLL
WWW
WWL
WLL
LWL
WLL
WLL
WLW
WLL

Turbo’s 90 game sample consisted of 20 games where he recorded WWW and only two games where LLL was recorded.

I wasn’t as lucky. My 90 game sample consisted of 11 games where the result was WWW and 11 games where the result was LLL.

My overall result for wins versus losses was 128 total wins and 142 total losses. It was close, but the losses outnumbered the wins by 14. Please see the chart at the bottom of this thread.

I don’t know if I will spend any more time on this. However, if anyone has any ideas or suggestions it would be good to hear them.

Improvements? There is one thing I would try next time. Occasionally you will get lucky with a win on the first or second spin. In this case, I believe it’s best to take the profit and end the game. Experience has told me that it is very rare to reach a new high if you continue playing the remaining dozens.

Another approach to playing this is a blanket rule to quit on first profit. This could work too. If anyone else decides to test this it would be good to see if they get good results quitting on first profit.

I guess that’s it from me. I will continue testing this if I get some more inspiration. Any ideas or input from Turbo would be greatly appreciated too.

Thanks (chart below)

 

You may get excited seeing some bets hitting more than average ones and may weave plans around them but when you play them realistically by any approach, with/without any MM you get to know that it is not helping at all. Randomness, law of short run, law of averages or call it whatever we get different bets behaving differently and unpredictably in short sessions for sure but can't really extract anything out of this "statistical reality".

 

Why to think what will be if he will be true, when true is known and it is such :

On that is finish - this is right calculations.
If he does not know what will fall in next spin his results in the long term will be like calculated and he never even mention that he something know.

 

I was never speaking about a method either. You were claiming to have beaten the house edge with your repeaters. Those were your exact words. We have shown that it doesnt make a single dent. It is still 12.3.

And no the house edge is not 50% change with 2 streets. Against 62%.

 

.

 

Good point.

 

Egg Harbour sounds like that nutcase Alrelax and THERE

LoL… It reminds me of one of my favourite movie scenes!

 

Sorry Eugene, I had trouble with that first post. It needed to be moderated. All good now

 

This is how it looks when you have the edge using repeaters. I already managed to exploit repeaters for the long term edge. (of course, here I played manually only 1284 spins - which means nothing - but it's tested over billions of spins - edge remains 24%).

The problem I have is with Turbo's claims that he can achieve the edge without any progression, using only bet selection. My repeaters method (not the one where ML exploits RNG) HAS TO INCLUDE progression (mild though, 1-2-3-4-5), as it's the only way to overcome negative expectation problem.

I'm not predicting patterns in randomness, but just manipulate the game's logic using simple probability tricks... What I'm looking for is how to spot exploitable patterns in randomness...

 

Hmmm lets hear it

 

Yet another person exploiting screen shots on a free play game.

So what. Bago's did a much better job of beating it and did so to prove how easy it was for a reason. Free play is not the real thing.

Free play modes exist to sucker gullible players like Ghost and Nutto.

 

The screenshots are from RX.
So what youre saying is that RouleteExtreme is the same as free play mode?
Both parties have the same motivation?

DrSAA I didnt think you were a conspiracy theorist.

 

I'm not proving anything... I'm just showing Turbo what it means having the edge - if your "Net %" isn't in plus at END of a game - you don't have the edge. (Software I see you all are using roulette xtreme shows the edge in yhe form of this "net %" field)

 

Smitridel, I was going to reply to the top half of your post and then it disappeared, lol.

I know what you are saying about the stats. A guy like Notto gets some stick but at the end of the day, he is the only one as far as I am aware that has really ever broken things down. His 1-3-5-7 examples are pretty much on the money whenever I test. The 'problem' I see or at least something I don't particularly care for is that even he gets drawdowns in the high hundreds of units. Maybe it's just a personal preference and no disrespect to Notto, but I couldn't stomach drawdowns like that.

 

Guys, roulette is such game in next spin you all have some number. Depending on how good you know which will be that next number is the quality of your winnings and nobody others have to influence on that...
So forgot all and try to know the next number in one or another way...

 

This is what I think as well. I know Turbo says that some people are fixated on just the one spin and that you need to look at things as a series of spins, well, I am not saying that's totally misleading but just remember it's the next spin that's the most important one and that's the one you are hopefully going to predict right because if you don't, it's back to square one!

 

Actually it was posted by mistake as I was already quoting but decided not to post due to being wasted in a thread full of hard fact fixations.
Ive studied Notto/Naughty thoroughly and Ive also read a LOT about where he got his ideas and I would agree on the Drawdowns that you need a big set of cojones to keep yourself together and focused.

One thing I noticed is that if you dont like the drawdowns of the nonhit switch your game to repeats or the really accurate 1 3 5 7 and reset at profit.

Question is:Would I have the same results if I was betting these groups of numbers in random?

I stumbled upon a variation of the raindrop theory almost by accident (trying to test all of Turbos old ideas) and this got me reading into the so called averages GUT, notto, etc in relation to Turbos repeats etc.

 

FACT: a progression can not turn a losing system into a winning one in the long run. Running an up as you lose progression is called, "chasing your losses".

 

Dr. Sir Any one


HI 5 ^^^^^