TurboGenius More on 6-streets / repeaters

These are stats from my live sessions (that table has a random bonus when 0 hits, sometimes you get your stake back sometimes nothing and occasionally even make profit without betting 0 thats why I use it), 12 sessions so far, always risking 300€ aiming to make 100€ (1st session was 75€ prof as it took too long so was not pushing it). The losing session will come I know, but nice to have made 4 session bank rolls already, so should be easier to take a hit.

 

Nice work!

 

You guys are moving way too fast.
You take a handfull of spins and judge if its effective or if you should tweak it.

All these years in these kind of forums and you have learned nothing.

Jehk Im glad you are going into enthusiastic mode again and pro-Turbo and I'll be waiting the moment you go over the threads whinning about how you lost it all and nothing works etc.
Because you dont have enough spins to draw a conclusion.

Its the same muppet show every time.

Give it some time.
Test thoroughly. Not 200 spins but not a million either.

Even Turbo in his examples had the decency to give statistical data of much more spins than you are willing to test or play.

 

Thanks for the feedback.
I agree, money management and a potential stop-loss could be the solution.

For the session from hell, the maximum progression was only +7. This isn't a lot, but it adds up. For instance, on the dozen which was under-performing, the progression would go down to six, then back up to seven, before dropping back to five. This happened constantly. Meanwhile, the streets where you are only betting one unit, are constantly clocking up the wins.

The problem with being at minus -182 units is that recovery isn't always guaranteed.

Sorry, I don't have specific details of the 'hell session'. I just recorded the wins and losses. JEKHB set the standard for recording his sessions. He did a brilliant job.

By the way, the very next session, I had another horror run. It went like this:

Session 36
WLWWWLLLWWLWLWLLWLWLWWLWWWWLWWLWLLWWWLWWWWLLWLWLWWLWLWWWLWWWWLLWWLWWWWWWWWLLLWWW +6

Stats for session 36

• Wins - 51
  
• Losses - 28
  
• +6 - Units profit

(163 spins - Lowest point: -156 units)

Thanks for the feedback Panantha

 

I agree Gigi. A stop-loss needs to be looked at. Agree, a winning session is a winning session. I should be thankful.

 

Keeping the same stake is a good idea. It's something I have tested in the past. I need to test it some more.

 

I spent a decent amount of time on this a few months ago. I'm happy to come back to it though. It needs to have more time spent on it. Nothing like looking at something with a fresh set of eyes.

 

Ive spent a tremendous amount of time (manual testing) of Turbos ideas and the 6 streets is an old one unfortunately, but is very easy to play.

One thing I can say for sure: Define a stop loss. And/Or a satisfying progression.
The +1-1 will not help, especially when variance whips you away. Yes, it seems..safer, BUT.
Other than that the bet selection is as solid as any other pattern betting strategy that deals with repeaters or even antirepeaters.

The theoretical aspects of random and how anyone defines them in a more controlled game play environment, remain the same.

 

As I mentioned before, it's encouraging to see the efforts working together and the naysayers absent. But it seems that the concentration is on individual sessions and not the big picture. TG has always said that everything he teaches is connected and all that we need is here in one format or another. We just need to put the puzzle together. With regard to his rules in his original post on this thread, he mentions that after any W or L, that dozen is finished until such time as all 3 dozen sections have resulted in W's or L's. So after a dozen is "done" and another spin hits that same dozen, how is that spin handled on a dozen that is done ? Is it simply disregarded and that spin is loss. Or maybe it is handled as a loss, but also maybe it should be recorded to keep continuity for the "big picture" and played for a repeat in another dozen. And can that "other dozen" be played simultaneously with the first dozen until that first dozen is done ? and so on and so forth? The word "reset" crept into the conversations and I'm not sure that TG mentioned it. If he did, I apologize and you can forget this post. To get the shape of TG's graphs, it would seem that an accumulation of continuous data would need to be collected and compiled (i.e. Geiger counter / Plinko). Just tossing it out there...

 

Smitridel: I understand your points about moving too fast, but I did test my approach (which something between slow Turbo play and fast congested Jekhb play) "offline" on various combinations of recorded spins from online games I played before and rng sets, plus sessions worth over 1k spins on RS to decide on the positive progression approach and when to abandon the dozen after a win or not. I think 300u stop loss is a good point as when the progression racks up the stake it would get out of hand too quickly, although it has not happened yet in my live sessions (over 1600 spins played this week) I am pondering whether my target isn't too small and maybe I should aim to make 50% so 150u.
I still call it testing just live with stake I can afford to lose, its always better than demo or rx testing, same as with trading, you won't learn how to trade unless you risk real money. It's easy to risk virtual cash so you build up false confidence, which I am sure many of you know.

Jono: Considering I played through many more spins than Jekhb, you could lean towards my way of keeping stakes same across all dozens, regardless if you prefer positive or negative progression. I also think its best to clean the dozens that won if there are other bets placed on table and only comeback if one street hits there again.

While I am live testing this I am trying myself on Gizmotron's practice software and must say its going pretty well, but long way to go as need more session to know its not just a fluke.

Happy hunting everyone. (still waiting to see what Rinad presents )

 

RickK: (and sorry others if my trading analogies start to annoy ) Its like in trading stocks/forex you can't really copy someone's success because we are all different and eventually we all have own style of play, same I think applies to gambling. Some people like to play repeats, others EC bets, so even if you put a golden egg on a plate it might not suit your style be too "grindy", too aggressive etc.
That's why I think Turbo does not give all the rules as it would not matter a lot of people would not take it as is anyway and only complaint, so those who want to will take the basics and try to work with it to suit them.
I don't mind sharing my progress and I did share rules, plus few sessions are visible on RS to everyone. It will lose at some point so I dont see a point to even run this in RX like some do for 20k spins as it proves what we all know already, there is no fool proof method, you can't sit and play through 20k spins continuously, increasing stakes forever, though I guess someone could code the method to maybe reset stakes after hitting 300 SL and continue.

 

Misprint on my post above regarding starting a second dozen after a first one is "done"....should be ....played simultaneously with the first *dozens* until that second dozen is done ? and so on and so forth?

 

Gigi...not sure where the annoyed reference came from....you may have thought my reference to individual sessions meant individual players....I was referring to individual playing sessions as opposed to one long continuous session with all results connected...maybe a poor choice of words, but no annoyance here..

 

Ah no RickK, there is no annoyance, my 2nd part of post was just to comment on the usual approach where some people on forums expect you to show hundreds of thousands of spin generated by RX sessions to prove something works or not. It was not directed at you.
While I write this I must add I've lost my first live session It had 5 losers in a row then 1 W and another 4 Losers, it would recover back to starting bank if I'd let it go down to almost -400u.

 

Actually, Rinad's ds approach is probably the easiest method to keep the data continuously coming in..."always following the last ds in each dozen"...repeats on a W and an opposite on a L...looking forward to his next post to hopefully help with analyzing playing conditions...

 

Good morning guys (well in holland anyway )
The problem we are running into is we don't know the propper MM.
Do we raise on a loss of an independant street or double street? like i've tested or do we use a progression on all bets at the same time, like sugested? To be honest and that's what i wanna test this weekend is to see how this method is performing when i use a +1 -1 after all dozen sessions are over.
when we have a:
WWW
LWW
LLW
LLL
WLW
WWL
WLL etc

and look if we are at a new high or not and use the MM according to that.
My suggestion is that we keep the same stakes on all bets until the entire session is over. The reason i think this is better is because we you raise on a certain street or double street and the rest of the bets remain the same, you can and will get in to a hole due to varience where you can't get out from.
And only raising the stakes once we have ended the entire session of 3 you keep more balanced regarding ups and downs, at least that how i see it.
Further more, i don't know for sure if a stop/loss point will be of any help.
Personaly i just like to reset the bettig amount and spincount once i reach a new high. But that's something personal, everyone has their own Mm plan regarding when to stop.
Maybe Ed can jump in again and guide us to a more effeciant MM playstyle regarding this method.
Anyway, this is what i have in mind and will test this either tomorrow or sunday. I'm planning to run a big session of around 8 hours BM time including small breaks, to play a session of around 400 spins with this. still small i know, but i think i will have a better idea how this is goin' to work out.
Keep you all posted ofcourse.
Have a great day and stay safe
Eddy

 

I tried that quite early, playing Turbo's way I would increase stakes if WLL eetc. ended up in a loss, I'd increase the stake +1 or more depending how deep was the loss to be able to get back to new high after first win, but it did not work well since you still hit the issue (at least for me ) of waiting for 1 dozen to finish the cycle, so you might get 6 spins loading up 3 dozens then a zero, then a loss on 1st dozen , and it can then keep hitting without your bets there, so when eventually 2nd and 3rd hits a WIN you are still down in that session.
I'd say stick to one approach for bit longer and not change again.
I'll report every few days on how games are going.

 

Hi, guys.
Finally, I can join you too to test this system. I started testing it at the beginning of the month when Turbo shared it, but then because of my illness, I could not approach it for 3 weeks. Now I can take it easy and I can already work with it.
When I tested at the beginning of the month, following Turbo's example, I inevitably came to the same conclusion as Eddy. That you have to play all three dozen all the time, or at least make a system based on it. I`m testing in my program, into which I load numbers from real roulette, which I collected myself. I have a lot of them. But I do all the tests on 3 completely different sets of numbers, which are radically different from each other, in order to know for sure that this or that system works. Each set consists of about 800 spins. So here. Why I came to the same conclusion as Eddy. Because whyle testing at the beginning, following Turbo's example, where we wait until all 3 dozen fall out, then in my tests with real roulette, the last dozen did not fall out 10, 12 and even 17! spins. Well, that's nonsense, of course. And with all this, there were also 4 L in a row. And it is simply impossible to get out of such a hole. Therefore, it is absolutely logical that until the last dozen 17 spins falls, you need to play on others at this time to create at least some kind of balance.
So this is the example of Turbo, where we are waiting, I always had only a minus on all the tests, and at the end I was big minus on all three sets of my numbers. But now, when I changed the rules according to Ed's principle, it's already! everything has changed. Yes, not everywhere goes straight to the plus, but even where the minus, there used to be only a minus, and now even in the plus a good one came out, but then it rolled again. But maybe I know why. I will test this further and tell. And the results between these two styles of the game I will now post later. And that's all about someone saying what's best done like Turbo. When on my tests, with Ed's idea, the tests are much better.

I was checking to see if I programmed the system correctly according to Eddy's rules, and I ended up having a discrepancy. I had 46 and not 52 profit. But then when I checked, I saw that he was mistaken when the number 12 fell. He wasn't supposed to clean 5th Street. Otherwise, it's all right.

But this is ok, for myself I checked that the exact tests were.

 

From a testing perspective, make sure you don't back-fit the strategy to the spins sets you have. Its easy to find a solution to any bad run this way but that does not mean its the right approach long term.
Eddy - personally I think stop loss is a must have, otherwise you can lose more than you planned before starting the game. The roulette wheel or dealer does not know what is your stop loss, you might have 10k with you or deposited in online casino, that does not mean you can't have a 300$ stop at each session. Relative to SL a good target profit or/and time you want to spend playing would mean you can look back at your past sessions with confidence that for example losing 1 bank roll every 5 sessions is not a big deal if you made 25%+ each winning session.
Up until now I am averaging 0.94€ profit per spin played (1829 spins played this week), thats I think best I had over such number of spins. Will see how long it can last.

 

Here are the results for comparing two different options.

First Turbo:

1set of numbers from real wheel.
724 spins.
minimum how much the deposit sat down was -1051
max was 0. (mean that always was down)
at the end deposit was -561.

2set of numbers from real wheel.
928 spins.
minimum how much the deposit sat down was -320
max was 77
at the end deposit was -154

3set of numbers from real wheel.
712 spins.
minimum how much the deposit sat down was -134
max was 68
at the end deposit was -70

Second is Eddy`s method:

1set of numbers from real wheel.
724 spins.
minimum how much the deposit sat down was -1199
max was 378
at the end deposit was -579.

2set of numbers from real wheel.
928 spins.
minimum how much the deposit sat down was -167
max was 1719
at the end deposit was 1569

3set of numbers from real wheel.
712 spins.
minimum how much the deposit sat down was -520
max was 576
at the end deposit was 119

So how we see its very different. So in first set of spins of 724 in Turbo method minimum was -1051, and at Eddy method was -1199. At the end T: -561, Ed: -579. Not much differs. Yes. BUT. At T deposit only dropped down, while Ed's was going up to 378. Its very good. And why so much minus was I`ll say later. Because, as I said before, this is three different sets that are very different and on which you need to check whether the system will work.

So at second set of spins 928 T minimum was -320, Ed only -167. Maximum at T was 77 with -70 at the end, while at Ed max was 1719!!! with the end deposit 1569!!! Very very different. And its awsome.

And third: T min -134, Ed -520, max T 68, Ed 576, end T -70, Ed 119.

So, as we see, Edd's method is much better in all three sets anyway. This is unambiguous.

Now at the expense of the first set, and the whole game as a whole. Why is there such a big minus in the first set. I'll answer you. Because I also checked on these numbers and the tables of Turbo's races when they were. And in this first set, 0 was after a certain run ALWAYS in first place until the very end. I.e. in this first set of 724 numbers is very much 0. And we do not have it in the system. Yet.
I've already done some zero tests, and that's what I figured out. If you put it to zero all the time, then in all these three sets at the end there will always be profit.
In 1st set at the end 322 in profit with always bet on 0
In 2nd set at the end was 154 profit with awlways bet on 0
In 3rd set at the end was 166 profit with awlways bet on 0

So always bet on 0 we will be in profit at the end. But in begining ther was -50 or -60. So it need to testing this with system. But it will be tomorrow only. And of caurse it need to be more good joise of bets. And I have some ideas, but need time. To late today. See ya.

P.S. Always bet on zero or 24 spins only. Is the best ways to bet on zero. If 24 spins. When zero come again - bet to it.