TurboGenius Gigi's HR tests

Hi Platton,

Glad to see you are testing. It is possible to play this flat, but you would have to know whats the good profit or number of wins to stop for any given cycle. I find that each cycle if its meant to give profit its most often early on (first 5 spins usually), but have not tried playing that way. Another good way to reset/stop is number of wins or new highs and I use that in my tests for the moment.

Think about it this way, if you are playing a group like average hitters and you start with 14 numbers if you win 4 times and no new numbers add to that group, you are only left with 10 so its more likely unhits will show to increase the single hitters/average group before more wins come.

So if I start with 15 in first cycle I tend to aim for 3 wins making new high and then stop for that cycle, in latter cycles I aim for number of wins depending on how many numbers I have to bet, if its 5 numbers I aim to just make new high once (or go above previous cycles balance if it was down).

Happy testing. I'll try something else this week and post results to compare for same files I have as you rightly pointed out from various casinos.

 

As most I could not figure out a profitable flat bet play with "horse races", trying something again with min intervals. (all flat bet)

 

Lets put this to a test, nobody is saying I have to bet a number or more from the start, I'll start from spin 50 it does not change the odds of still having two hits by spin 68, so I'll track the non-hits up to that point and for the next few tests will just bet the non hits that showed up within next 18 spins to hit one more time. Continue roll 50 spin track as there is no better way with RX unfortunately.

 

that session file was bit short, lets try something larger.

 

I guess that did not work out too well

 

Playing the unhits after spin 50 to spin 68

 

Another attempt, bit messy and definitely unplayable in B&M but kept balance above the water. Playing unhits from 37 rolling cycle and 3x numbers until new high, adding to hits of no new high and if it was 3x hitter or 1st hit in current rolling cycle. I know too complex to make sense. All part of the process though.

 

"Players" playing their own but collective game.

 

It isnt always that nice and quick.

 

This time rolling 74 spins as entry for our "players" and if a win does not make that player in profit add +1.

 

I've done this to death in the past, and there are multiple ways to play it and win. But you're not going to win every time, you have to use a slight positive progression on each hit, and you must play with a stop point reset because one out of every 5-6 attempts will go negative from the start and crater at -1000u quickly, eating up more than the other 5 or so wins previously.

So it's out there in other words.

It's not (in my hands anyway) some sort of grail, and I certainly can't make it win the way others have mentioned, but it wins more than it loses...which is good enough for me.

 

I have multiple approaches that seem to produce decent results in theory more sessions winning than losing , but nothing that you can just play flat and be sure to win each time, or its physically impossible for human to sit through 1000 spins in b&m or even online live dealer that you might need for something to "catch" up and win for you to at lest break even.

 

This time removing numbers only if a win is new ath, rolling 74 spins, was going very well until last 70 spins or so.

 

Agree, anything needing beyond 200-300 spins is a non-starter for me (though I test them for fun) as it's not realistic for B&M only players. And same, I can't find a winning flat bet, at least not one that wins enough to overcome those "dive" sessions where it goes off a cliff quickly and never recovers.

The "catch up" formula does work though, you're seeing it to some extent in your tests. TG's Minimum Interval demonstration fits as well, which tells you it's there to be exploited. The progression though is tougher to figure out, the more efficient approach basically to balance risk versus reward versus time spent.

 

Yes I like the minimum intervals, works well if you wait long enough, 3 cycles seem best. With online live dealer its not a problem as you just pick up history and track from there. As you said the sequence of death is always somewhere behind the corner so knowing when to stop seems to be the key, but then again, those that are "experts" like Turbo seem to be able to play forever and always come on top. Will see how his long session plays out, though I am sure its probably not a viable way to play long term but will see. I wish all the arguing stopped, its same story every single time Turbo posts something, if "your" math is telling you can't win, why even be on gambling forums, but I guess trolls will be trolls.

 

Ha, that's funny, I also have felt that 3x cycles is optimum for MI after testing it at length, and that it either has to perform or you have to eject from the plane at that point.

With TG, my philosophy is that as a player, you have a few options in terms of belief system when it comes to his postings:

1. You believe that he wins more than he loses, is legitimately trying to help others, and thus his information is valid to spend time on, and try to reverse engineer.

2. You believe he doesn't win more than he loses, but, his approach to the game is valid in terms of unique perspective, outside the box thinking, and that he performs far better in terms of net losses than the average system builder or forum participant, and thus is worth your attention.

3. You believe TG doesn't win more than the average player, his methods or systems are all up against the wall of -EV, and that it's simply because Roulette offers so many different bets to pursue that he finds ways to basically use a lot of exotic ways to end up at the same endpoint: Losing.

For me personally, after so many informative posts by him, so many years of doing it, and none of it being incentivized by selling systems or books or forum membership for his own gain, believe it's #1 above.

I do feel he wins more than loses, not necessarily cracking the code of the constant-winning-bet (though he seems on the way with the current R-Sim attack), and that he's found multiple ways to identify, exploit, and profit from the turning of negative variance to positive variance. Our testing of his work is close enough to success to show he's on to something for sure, that's where the basis of my belief system comes from. It's close...