TurboGenius Note Keeping From Live Play

Denzie,

Stop pretending. We both know you're not winning dirt with your little systems.

 

Wow , nice comeback. You forgot your arrow though....yawn

 

Denzie,

It's virtually impossible to carry on a real conversation with you because you're lost in fallacies and short term data. There's just so much that you simply don't comprehend.

 

Lol, that last sentence applies more to you than anyone!

 

You have to ignore Dr. Troll, he doesn't understand the concept and never will. He only spouts off looking for attention.

 

The tests show there is no difference with betting random. So if there is no difference then there is no advantage...

but obviously you think there is. It will not matter what will be said here anymore.

 

The key advantage here is the reliability of a known outcome. It's so important I'll say it again. The key advantage here is the reliability of a known outcome.

In your tests you compare it to random, that is not how to test this.
It's as if you are comparing a trillion planets out in space looking for life outside of Earth. You have to limit your search to where a planet will have life, it has to be close to a star for light and heat, it has to have a proper mix of gases to support breath, it has to have water.

In this case there are 37 planets. A number thar has hit once is a planet close to a star, a number that has hit twice has a proper gas mix, a number that has hit 3x has water and so on. A number that is unhit is a planet out in the cold dark space where it just sits there and is of no use.

 

Ridiculous nonsense.

 

The happy few know what you’re trying to say, for the majority it is like looking for a needle in a haystack. And even worse they don’t know what the needle looks like.
Instead of coding you should start playing 10+ sessions (1 session=40-90spins) a day on RS, so you actually see what happens. After a couple of months things will get clearer, probably!
Winning #’s occur in overlapping cycles, that’s why I don’t like the word cycles. Every spin is the start of a new cycle.

 

The previous post is not directed to you Nimo.

 

If you only knew!
Why don’t you just let it go?
Be the greater men for once, like Turbo said you en him would be betting the same numbers if it was a biased wheel.

 

No, actually there's very little chance of that scenario. Here's why...you're looking at short term data where random numbers pop up and down at random. In the short term you can't tell what's a real biased number and what's just a random number. I could even tell you in advance that a wheel was biased but you wouldn't be able to find the biased numbers with your short term data. And that's the problem with what you're doing. You're just chasing random. You're looking forwards and backwards in trivial amounts of data while playing the "could of would of should of" game. You're blissfully ignorant that you're curve fitting the data in the process. For some reason you guys think that ten games of 10 or 20 spins is relevant, when it's most certainly not. It's just beyond absurd.

 

I agree with this. A few spins isn't enough to find that bias

But our 2-200 spins or whatever short term data
Combined over 100000000000000 spins is the long run also . But no need to REPEAT what TG said so many times . And if you win a new br every session and random throws out those rare sessions we not gonna care about it . Reset and win the next game ....and the next game ....and the next game...and ...well you get my point

 

The test has shown (over and over again) that there is no difference with random.

A number that has shown (example) 4x has no greater chance to get to 5x.

Why?

How many numbers are there on 4x (on average)

9 numbers (36 wheel)

and how many spins does it take (on average) to get from 4x to 5x

4 spins

4 x 9 = 36 spins.

So no difference with betting random, they BOTH give exactly the same results.

Yes you can say you dont bet them all, but none of those numbers has any greater chance to get hit. With so many variations tested on those principles it would have shown up by now.

And I say it again because everybody seem to miss that obvious fact:

Where are all the people that were shouting left and right they figured it out? They would go on for months/years and then booom dead quiet, all of them (well except elvis how had to guts to tell it did not work in the end.)

The start of this thread was that @TurboGenius had a chance to shut us up for once and for all. His words said there would be a difference in the data. We tested and there is none unfortunatly. So we can close this debate and conclude he was wrong.

 

The exact method I play on roulette, I applied to pick 3 lotteries. The odds there are 1 in 1000, yet I have won an incredible amount of money using the basic same logic. It works. I will repeat it again, the advantage is known outcome. Just because you cannot figure it out when it is such a simple and elegant concept, AND laid out by Turbo in such an easy way, doesn't mean it does not work. By the way it works on major lotteries too, you just have to know how to apply it.

 

This is my second message on the forum. I didn't write before because I was late to Turbo's posts. I started studying it in mid-to-late 2022.
I have been away from the roulette forums since 2009, where I was since 2004/2005.
So I used all my available time to read and reread Turbo's and other participants' posts, trying to interpret indications, signs, clues or whatever you want to call it.
In other participants I include those who from day one all they have done is say that none of this works and that it is exactly the same as choosing random numbers. These last ones were of great help to me, every time I read them I was convinced that there was something important to observe there.
Studying Turbo's writings (yes, studying) led me to carry out countless sessions, some eternal and others short enough to be able to replicate in tables and graphs the results shown by Turbo in his posts.
I don't want to go into more detail, the only reason for this post is to say THANK YOU to TurboGenius for his teachings provided in this and other forums (yes, I bothered to track down everything related to Turbo on the internet).
I do not want to name other forum members, either for or against these teachings, I would surely forget some and that would be very unfair.
Again, THANK YOU INFINITE MR. TURBOGENIUS, chance has limits, you just have to know how to organize the information and how to graph it to be able to observe it with absolute clarity, the rest is a matter of averages.
HG? NO.
Do I know how Turbo plays? NO.
I adapt what I have learned to the form of play that is most comfortable for me, many times with a flat bet, other times with positive progression and several times with negative progression.
Is it okay to call a progression negative when we know what is going to happen and how long it will take to happen?
Richard
PS: If something I wrote is not understood, let me know, I write in Spanish and use Google Translate.

 

You completely misunderstood my post. Of course you can’t see a biased wheel with short term data. What I meant was, that during the time (time= what ever you see fit) you need to determine if a wheel is biased a Turbo-style concept would already be winning. But then when you start betting on your numbers TG would be there as well.

Like Nimo said: The reliability of an known outcome! Excellent!!
Just like SirAA himself, most of his reply’s are an known outcome.
You know what’s absurd, going around in circles like you do. The same comments over and over again.

 

It happens because of random.
There IS a difference in data.
Your testing is wrong, you compare something with something you don’t know what it looks like.
We certainly can close this debate and conclude he was right.
You hope that somebody spills the beans without doing the work yourself, you even need a computer to test over millions of spins. That says a lott.

 

Absurd claims require proof. Where's your proof? Show your data that supports your ridiculous claims.

 

From my point of view it’s anything but a absurd claim!
If you don’t believe it that’s okay, I’m not gonna spill somebody else’s beans.
Post #123+#124 two kinds of logic, different perspectives.