TurboGenius More on 6-streets / repeaters

Platton - are your tests all to 1$ chips? as if so -1000+ drawdown is quite high.

 

First of all kudos for a well constructed post and detailed report!
Unfortunately you fail to understand that testing the same spins with 2 or 3 or a zillion similar methods will lead to the same results and its actually kind of curve fitting because you already know the results and compare between the forementioned methods.

Which would mean that some systems may work, some would work wonders and others will fail miserably.

The hard fact is is that you cannot know how each game will evolve thus you cannot know which method will suit you best in each session.

 

Yes! Of course! That's why we need to refine this system. Right now, I'm going to be testing together with the zero to see how much it will affect the results. I'll report on the tests later.

Man... Please don't tell us with your speculations and guesses that you supposedly know more than anything. If you have specific facts of something, in this example the facts of saying that past numbers will not work, then give them. Otherwise, it's just chatter and the realization of your ego. Like others - I will ask you - why did you come here? To help something? So help the case and the facts, and if you come here and tell us with a smart look that we are doing everything wrong, that we should look at something there, that is, go there I don't know where and do that I don't know what. Then you, like the rest, just realize your ego, smarting in front of us. And who you are and what you are, and what you can - no one knows. So if there are specific facts of any of your words, we will be grateful for the help. If you're just gonna make this talk, it's better with you. Maybe we do not have as strong minds as you and others, but we will step by step, mistake by mistake approach something valuable, but with practice and without fabulous mysteries.

P.S.About my spins that I'm testing. I have a lot of them. But it is these 3 that are so different that it is if all these 3 sets of spins show good results that it will be a very big success. Because how many I did test systems based on the same Vaddy, and 2 sets gave just excellent results, and I was already happy, then 3 always gave the opposite result. And there has never been such a time that all these 3 sets show a good result. In addition, Turbo's racing tables. But there, too, of course, their flaws. And most importantly, these are spins with real roulette, where basically I think and everyone will play, but not rng or RS. So if it turns out here, then it will be possible to test the rest.

 

Man, theres no need to be hostile.
Everything I said has been posted a hundred times by many members (even in this forum).
If you cant learn from that, well, be my guest on figuring out the hard way (as I did).

The point is that any bet selection based on statistical facts works (and sometimes it doesnt).
It doesnt really matter how you approach and take advantage of these facts.
When in one session an X method will work, on a series of others it will not and another one will work.
BUT you dont know that before you start playing that session.

All Im saying is that MM is paramount if you have a locigal bet selection (Turbo wise, Vaddi, Dyksexlic etc) and you want to battle varriance.

 

So. There are so far two not very good news, but this is good, because it will be possible to move on.
First, in my Eddy tests, a profit error was made. She's in all three sets 3 less. Minus the same.
The second is that zero gives a generally better result than a game without zero, but not enough to be in profit. But this is normal and understandable.
However, I do not just do the test, but try to look at what happens during the test. So, since this method does not work on all three sets of numbers, you need to go further. And now I'm going to test the same thing as Eddy. I also noticed during the test that the next step is to try variations with bets. Because somewhere 1 unit beats too often than the rest, where 4-5 units. Accordingly, you need to try to raise and lower rates at the same time, including zero, if tested with it. Or, according to the observation of the test, there was such an idea that you can increase as usual in every dozen separately when losing. And lower everything when winning. It's kind of a stop loss you were talking about. I.e. these will be to some extent losses, but not such as to go into the hole.

P.S. In general, from the beginning, I realized that despite the fact that W is larger than L, nevertheless, even 3 W in a row can give minus each!!! It depends on the number of spins when this W occurred after the bet. And so far we are not defeating him. Because even almost twice as much W does not exceed L in profit, despite the fact that many W also give negative profits. We will understand further.

 

Good. First of all, to show how stupid I am about you and others, I don't know what MM is? You can dedicate me to this if you want.
The second. Okay, I totally agree that something works on certain numbers, something doesn't. That's all clear. Who did thousands of tests understand this. That's why I'm telling you that on all three sets of numbers, there was no system that won on all three.
Good. Then you say that you will not know what will work until you start playing. I don't know what that means, and I don't know why you're writing it here, again, things that are not clear to you alone. But back to your example, as I understand it, you're saying that you can only find out what will play profit when you start playing. But for this you need at least some rules, a system, right? What you're gonna know is what you're gonna play or what you mean, don't understand? And what makes you think I can't apply these same rules, the system for numbers that have already dropped out? I don't see a single reason why I can do the same thing there. Not one. So I'm sorry, but I don't know what you're saying. Only one whole clever thing...

 

ΜΜ=Money Management

This includes progressions as well as stop losses, bankroll divisors etc.
There are hundreds of threads that can teach you about clever MM techniques in other forums as well.

Yes you need a system, pick one, any system from your personal favorites.
I disagree with the characterization that Jehks interpretation is better than Turbos (or even the other way around).
They are the same thing only different approaches and they have the same hit rate.

 

Eight hours testing at the B&M is a serious session. That will put any method to the test. I hope it goes well.

Look forward getting an update on your results.

 

Ok. This words come to me in head yesterday

In this point of view maybe. But what does that give for the game? Nothing for me. And in practice, Eddy's method is better.

 

All right. There are a little more tests I've done. I tested to increase the progression of all chips at the same time, as well as their lowering at the same time. Here's what I did:
So, first, what we had in the end. I'm just taking Ed's example. And as I said then, I was wrong, and all the profits had to be divided into 3. Again, the results are just how Eddy played:

1set of numbers from real wheel.
724 spins.
minimum how much the deposit sat down was -1199
max was 126
at the end deposit was -831.

2set of numbers from real wheel.
928 spins.
minimum how much the deposit sat down was -167
max was only 573 (Not 1700+)
at the end deposit was 423

3set of numbers from real wheel.
712 spins.
minimum how much the deposit sat down was -520
max was 192
at the end deposit was -265

So next will be this method, but with zero, where I allways bet on it 1 chip always flat. Dozens plays with progression, as Eddy did.

1. min -1023, max 249, at the end -598.
2. min -328, max 628, at the end 384
3. min -485, max 389, at the end -23.

So, as we can see, zero is better anyway than without it. Some ideas that I tested will not show, because they simply do not matter and are unprofitable too. Next I will show just Eddy's method, but the progression will be on all the chips immediately, like Turbo's, as Eddy wanted to test, as I understand it. But without zero for now:

1. min -1200, max 53, at the end -849
2. min -368, max 467, at the end 196
3. min -567, max 167, at the end -187

I compared now, and it seems like the difference is not really big. But during the test, I didn't like this method, because the number of bets reached 11-12 chips, while with progression on each dozen separately at that time there was only 6-7. Although this may not be so significant either. And the last test, this is so simultaneous progression everywhere, but already with zero and progression on zero too.

1. min -221, max 881, at the end 872
2. min -212, max 821, at the end 640
3. min -264, max 783, at the end 773

Yes, the latter looks very pleasant and profitable. BUT, I don't like it. Because if you exclude zero from this equation, then this system in this form in which it is - losing. And this is not a victory. Therefore, yes, with zero is better, with progression on it even better. But in these sets there are zero, in the first there is so much, so there is such a big difference. And in the first set, I can only earn more from the racing system. And if you remove zero from this set and play only in dozens, then just the first set is the worst example and invincible. Therefore, I can even not test on the rest yet, but try to win the first set, in dozens. Then it will be closer to victory. Therefore, now I`ll eat, and go on. I will write thoughts in the next post.

 

Now accidentally in the games Turbo watch there are no new games there him. And I discovered that he was playing dozens of accounts yesterday for example. I think maybe he'll write something new here based on that game. Although there is only the same game on only one dozen. I don't know how it can help yet. But let's leave it and get back to our own thinking. And I wanted to move on to the next steps of the study. But why did everyone go somewhere again, and no one writes anything. And my scarce mind may soon give up, because it is not enough. And other thoughts and reasoning would help in further research.
I would like to move on to further steps that cover a much larger picture of the game than just from win to win. I did these tests to just step by step see what was happening during the game in different ways. However, I understood that most likely it would not work. According to their conclusions, which are told for a very long time, and it is not necessary. Then now we need to move on to understanding everything that is happening.
Let's just say that. I always had the law 2/3 in my mind. That is, where it is in our tests and how to use it. I have repeatedly reread Turbo's initial posts in this thread, but now rereading again, I understand that most likely this "system" itself is this law. I.e. he writes that with a rate of 50% of the field, we will win 63% of the time playing on repeaters. Which in general is understandable for me now. By the same law 2/3. Why playing 50% of the field - I do not understand why this happens? I wrote once here that studying Vaddy, only recently, at the end of last year, I came to the idea of trying to put on 50% of the field, because this is a 50/50 win. But naturally knowing that there is a 2/3 law, and that in 37 rotations 24 numbers will fall and 12 repeat, then I was looking for a way to learn how to set 50% fields so that in 37 rotations my numbers fall more, taking into account that numbers repeat. But it never succeeded. Therefore, I was interested in this type of bets.
So the next is likely to be an introduction to the system of expanding rotation reviews, as we suppose, up to at least 37 rotations, and with a rate of 50% of the field. But it's a little later. First we need to figure out some of what Turbo's talking about at the beginning of this thread. I hope someone will join in and help with their thoughts, because mine are no longer coping.

 

So first lets think about that progression. Why would he constantly explain about this progression if it does not work. I.e. it works. Yeah, because he says it doesn't matter how much she goes upstairs, she'll still go back down because we win 2/3 of the time. In my first set, she reached a couple of times to 11 or 12 in my opinion, but 11 was definitely. The second time was at the very end, so she did not have time to drop down and finished somewhere on 7. But the first time she reached 11 units in the middle. And yes, then it still fell down to 1 unit. BUT, at the same time, she went deep into the minus about -400 -500 chips. That's why this progression is a bad thing, and that we win 2 more times than we lose if we don't win anyway. Why that's what I know. Because as I wrote earlier - wins do not cover losses, even considering that there are 2 times more!!! Do you understand what nonsense it is? Why don't winnings cover losing? I wrote too! Because it all depends on the number of spins between the start of the bet and when that bet win. Since we're talking about winning by one dozen, in one dozen we're basically putting 2 streets. And it means that on average we have only 6 spins, either to get at least some profit, or to come out at no loss from this street. And as I said, even 3 wins in a row - can bring a negative bankroll each!!! That we observe in our tests.
So here Jono example:
Session 36
WLWWWLLLWWLWLWLLWLWLWWLWWWWLWWLWLLWWWLWWWWLLWLWLWWLWLWWWLWWWWLLWWLWWWWWWWWLLLWWW +6

Stats for session 36

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

So how we see, wins like 2 times more. But only +6 wins. In 163 spins.
So I think progression isn't important. Because while this method does not work, and it needs to be finalized.

 

So how can we use it? I don't understand anything anymore. What gives us that he says that after two dozen plays, there is more chance that the third will be winning than the loser? It immediately seems that you need to think of the system like making a bet after the playing of two dozen. But this is not productive and will contradict his other thread, to which I still cannot approach. So who has any idea what that gives us?
And what does his last sentence mean? What doesn't matter the style of the game while something is there? Can someone to explain what he meant? Thanks.

 

Can anyone help me deal with this, guys?
I don't understand what he's saying, but maybe something important, but I can't understand it. Especially this:

How to understand this? Why he says the balance will decrease even if the win is 2/3. I think that's exactly what we need to realize. Does anyone understand what he means here?
It also seems to me that this may have something to do with the thread to which I still want to approach and apply it to this system, where he says that you never bet on what has not fallen, just giving an example of 3 dozen. But I don't know what he means here?

 

I think you are trying too hard and over-complicate things.

 

glad you came back Gigi. I posted a great method on Eddy's post "light ball" as I mentioned.
Cheers
Rinad

 

Sorrt guys, been sick for a few days, so haven't had the change to play. When i'm all better i will continue.
cheers.
Eddy

 

500 consecutive winning sessions

In December last year I posted an update on Turbos ‘Advantage of repeaters thread’ (https://www.gamblingforums.com/threads/advantage-of-repeaters-explained-part-3-2020.18024/page-34). I was getting good results using a +1/-1 progression. However, waiting for three repeaters to fall gets very time consuming, so I decided to take a break.

I moved back to this thread and I’m glad I did. I have just completed 500 consecutive winning sessions. Using a base unit of one, I finished with a total of 2936 units. In Turbo’s post, he speaks of winning 63% of the time. However, my win rate was higher with the wins sitting at 68% (losses 32%). Overall, total wins were 1645 W and 782 L. As Turbo says, pretty good for what is apparently a 50/50 game.

Of the 500 winning sessions, there was just one session which I consider would not have been practical playing in a real situation. That is, one game dropped below 400 units. I will need to go over the stats, but over 90% of games never dropped below -100 units.

No more games. Time to analyze the data....!

Cheers

 

Nice work.
I was following that account (was under a different name ?) for a while and watching it climb each and every game.
If I remember right, some people said that was impossible to do.

 

Cheers Turbo. I changed the name of the account several times because I didn't want anyone looking over my shoulder. I just wanted to test in peace. I'll post again when I have had a chance to analyze the data.