1. Welcome to the #1 Gambling Community with the best minds across the entire gambling spectrum. REGISTER NOW!
  2. Have a gambling question?

    Post it here and our gambling experts will answer it!
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Discussions in this section are assumed to be EV- as they are outside of the Advantage Play section. For EV+ discussions, please visit the Advantage Play section.
    Dismiss Notice

Roulette Ramblings of the Inept for the Misfits

Discussion in 'Roulette Forum' started by TurboGenius, Oct 5, 2019.

  1. Fossell

    Fossell Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2016
    Likes:
    152
    Location:
    UK
    To get the same results you would have to compare to how TG was picking them. Which you don't know. But i'd suggest that if you go back and run tests on picking a group of numbers that have repeated and compare to random groups, and do this for many like for like sessions a difference may reveal itself.
     
    TurboGenius likes this.
  2. Fossell

    Fossell Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2016
    Likes:
    152
    Location:
    UK
    Both
     
  3. Ka2

    Ka2 Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2019
    Likes:
    192
    Location:
    Netherlands
    Of Course
    they are not flat, if it were flat you could make a killing! But they are not BETTER or WORSE than roulette in itself! The results after 1000's of spins are the SAME. Why is almost nobody seeing that???

    Here is another "EXAMPLE" pick the 12 top performers play them for 5 cycles of 37 spins this is your own DOZEN bet have you increased the odds after 1000's of spins? Do this with the "at expected" numbers and do this with the worst 12 performers, Have you INCREASED or DECREASED the odds after 1000's of spins???
     
  4. Ka2

    Ka2 Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2019
    Likes:
    192
    Location:
    Netherlands
    I can do that.

    But do you at least agree that if you put in X in Y and Y does not improve X whey botter with Y!
     
  5. Smitridel

    Smitridel Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2019
    Likes:
    134
    Location:
    Greece
    Unless we take into account new studies on the quantum physics field that somehow implicate the presence of the observer as being important at the results' outcome (when on the absense the results will differ), I really dont see a how groupings work.

    Well you can always stick with groups of repeaters, unhits and uniques. But the moment you enter the cycle of observing them and grouping them is another cycle on itself. Which in real situations I dont think you sit there and watch a satisfying number of spins to take your results.

    So out of curiosity how do you pick groupings?
    Repeaters? And you consider repeaters by taking into account past 37 spins or more?
     
    Ka2 likes this.
  6. Smitridel

    Smitridel Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2019
    Likes:
    134
    Location:
    Greece
    I actually dont expect an answer from Turbogenius himself (about the groupings way of forming) but at least someone here that may have understood his concept( judging from some comments it seems that maybe 1 or 2 ) could give a hint or two.

    TG said that after you pick a number you make new sets.
    Are they the same sets you used before (but probably different results will come), are they maybe a formation or repeaters, Uniques, Unhits from the spins you have so far?

    Or am I reading too much in the sets idea?
     
  7. TurboGenius

    TurboGenius Well-Known Member Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2015
    Likes:
    1,794
    Occupation:
    Self proclaimed Theoretical Philosopher
    Location:
    Near Atlantic City New Jersey
    It's fine to test whatever you want and however you want Ka2 -
    Let's say I pick random spin numbers and then put all those together -
    I still have a random list of numbers that don't show anything... correct.
    Now below (in the other thread) I showed that using a specific way to pick
    those random spins produces non-random results (see below).
    14 36's in a row for example... Is IMPOSSIBLE, yet you replies that it could happen ?
    It's never happened, not even close and can't happen - 5 maybe in a row, 6 would be a miracle
    if you understand math - but 14 correct picks in a row are statistically impossible, yet
    I can achieve it every time. (and others can too).


    No, your chances are still 1 in 6 - no one has said otherwise.
    You're stuck on a single chance in a single pull from the bag - it's ok though, most people who
    don't work out ways to win are confined to the "1 spin" mentality and never see past it.
    Once you look past "it's just a 1 spin game / each spin is independent / there are no patterns / there
    is no way to predict future spins based on past results" you can see things more clearly.
    I don't know a single person who ever went into a casino with the goal of playing 1 spin and then
    leaving. Sure it's been done (put it all of red or black for 1 spin)... but it's not a winning strategy
    obviously - you can't predict what a single solitary spin will result in.
    Now a group of spins (a session) is another ball game all together and NEVER produces random
    results in the short term... that's why you don't see equality with random, that's why there are
    patterns that form, that's why it's predictable.
     
    Spider likes this.

  8. TurboGenius

    TurboGenius Well-Known Member Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2015
    Likes:
    1,794
    Occupation:
    Self proclaimed Theoretical Philosopher
    Location:
    Near Atlantic City New Jersey
    So when you see results that "you" can't explain or reproduce, it's clearly a lie. Got it.
    I'm glad most people don't think that way or else we would all still be living in caves and hitting
    one another with sticks. One caveman at some point showed another caveman how to make fire...
    But you would say he was a liar, fire doesn't exist.
    This is the limit of your comprehension I suppose, so be it.
    I post actual results and when posting examples - I post AS I'm running the example.
    But you are free to believe or not believe whatever you want.
     
  9. TurboGenius

    TurboGenius Well-Known Member Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2015
    Likes:
    1,794
    Occupation:
    Self proclaimed Theoretical Philosopher
    Location:
    Near Atlantic City New Jersey
    Wow.
    And this nonsense coming from the person who posted this..

    So when I see red/black/red/black then I bet on red - got it.
    And if it ends up being black again and we lost - just wait for the next trend - got it.

    A big Thank YOU for your contribution to the gambling community around the world.. We are in your debt.
    Who knew that it was that easy ! My 38 years worth of working on roulette have been all in waste.
    I wish someone would have told me when I was 13 and programming ways to beat random that IT was
    just a matter of watching for red/blacks and then betting what OBVIOUSLY comes next....

    Back to your seat and don't raise your hand again UNLESS you have something to ADD that isn't completely asinine.
     
    trellw24 and Nathan Detroit like this.
  10. Smitridel

    Smitridel Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2019
    Likes:
    134
    Location:
    Greece
    Actually one question about that:
    In the example did you pick the numbers or the general pattern?

    The pattern is clear (B/R/E and combo)
    14 correct picks in a row isnt statistically impossible (thanks Gizmo for teaching me that) but the specific number?
     
    Last edited: Oct 12, 2019
  11. Ka2

    Ka2 Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2019
    Likes:
    192
    Location:
    Netherlands
    First I never spoke about 1 spin results I always spoke about cycles or more than that.

    Second you do agree that putting X ( your way of selecting numbers) in Y ( horse race sets ) and Y is not performing better than random. You do not need y to win! You already win with X alone ( what you already said you feed non random numbers in Y so you already win with X so whats the point you still use Y???)
     
  12. gizmotron

    gizmotron Well-Known Member Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Likes:
    3,040
    Occupation:
    Retired
    Location:
    The West Coast of USA, RV'ing
    You are using logic. So what you say fits. But Turbo must be using something else. He's not using math. We all know that won't beat Roulette. I doubt that he will ever say what he is using to a point of making it clear. But I wonder why this new working method is now the one if the last one works? Why does he keep searching?

    Let's just take the example above and just forget about Y because X wins. I can take random on random to use as a bet selection and still beat Roulette to smithereens. It all comes down to the effectiveness of the moment. If you can't see clusters ( or "lumps") as someone just called randomness lumpy, then you don't have to fund times when you can't see a favorable patch (lump). The actual bet selection is meaningless as most math centrist or math oriented players, theorists, and, gambling enthusiasts would all agree on. By using random on random I surrender using an identifiable reason for a selection and just let randomness itself make the next bet selection. In other words this really means that the selection does not matter.

    I use trends and patterns because I can see them. They don't matter though. But what they do for me is they show me when they are working and when they are not. I can see the formations, once again, (Lumps), as this form of bet selection goes into a winning state or winning condition. It's that condition that matters to me. It might be a fragmented cluster of wins that grind upward toward my goal. It could be a swarm all over my many faceted charts. It can also be a swarm of losing lumps too. I can see this. Math or magic does not cause these win or lose formations to occur. They don't prevent them either. Randomness allows them to exist. I like them because I use them when it is effective to use them. When a trend cluster is also a cluster of wins then I can see both clearly.

    This is the holy grail of winning. It has been for ages. "Bet big when you are doing good, bet small when you aren't." Trying to find a magical rule or a secret formula is just wishful thinking. People want the easy fix. They want a secret rule. So Turbo gives you what you want only it's dangling like a carrot on a string hung from a stick in front of you. He thinks he has discovered another bet selection trick. When will that guy ever learn? Or more important. When will you ever learn?
     
    Smitridel likes this.
  13. Smitridel

    Smitridel Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2019
    Likes:
    134
    Location:
    Greece
    Hm..
    A question to Turbogenius:
    Using the technique in this thread (and in relevance with the other) when you find the number do you continuously bet on it until it wins or do you take pauses (that are relevant to the flow) ?

    You dont have to explain just pause or not pause.
    Or pm me if you wish because I cant address you privately due to post limitations.
     
  14. Benas

    Benas Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2018
    Likes:
    156
    Occupation:
    Looking for peoples who play better...
    Location:
    Ania,PL
    So why you do not say that you can jump 3 meters high? Of course we cant that explain, but that will be true :)

    Turbo, not me can't explain, you simply can't understand that you write something and others opposite - understand that what you wrote is not real things. If you could do what you write and will get such results as you post in charts you simply not spent time here... that is first.
    And second is that to have +140% edge no matter how big Genius are you are still not realistic :).

    So next time when will post charts try to calculate edge and choose a slight bit more realistic :)
     

  15. Proofreaders2000

    Proofreaders2000 Well-Known Member Founding Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2014
    Likes:
    143
    Mathematically you are correct. If a person can do that and
    constantly make money, then casinos should close the tables.

    The trick imo is to have a winning strategy that
    is as easy to use
    as picking four different numbers.
     
    Last edited: Oct 12, 2019
  16. daveylibra

    daveylibra Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2018
    Likes:
    14
    Location:
    England
    Ka2, well done on your testing. Maybe we should stop at 37 spins instead of when another horse wins - or whichever is sooner. After all, we cannot be + after 37.
    And to everyone, perhaps the way to pick sets isn't so important, as Turbo says it works with random sets.
    Am I right Turbo?
     
  17. Turkish

    Turkish New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2019
    Likes:
    8
    Location:
    Asia
    I think there should be a way if not turbo wouldn’t state that he has a better way to pick

    Perhaps it is sectors? Or perhaps red/odd/low and black/even/low and so on as the groups
     
    Smitridel likes this.
  18. MillyMole

    MillyMole Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2019
    Likes:
    12
    Location:
    England
    Couldn’t give a fig what you think.You condescending jerk.

    If you can’t see trends forming on the wheel,then that’s your problem not mine.

    You couldn’t answer a simple question,how this amazing system of yours increases the chance of winning playing 4 numbers,rather than choosing any 4 numbers randomly.

    Because you can’t.



    38 years of playing roulette,and all you’ve done is post countless systems, in countless forums,majority of them over complicated crap.

    Roulette is an easy game,just you always complicated it though.

    Now get of my house.Begone with you !
     
    Nathan Detroit and Junket King like this.
  19. Bago

    Bago Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2017
    Likes:
    326
    Location:
    Mars
    It's the first time I see a fake profile attacking our great Turbo, the pattern here was new members praising him and his systems, I am quite shocked right now, where are my prozac pills.
     
    trellw24 and TurboGenius like this.
  20. John Blerg

    John Blerg Well-Known Member 👹 Troll 👹

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2018
    Likes:
    189
    Occupation:
    Founder of CalAsia Proven Baccarat Wagering Method
    Location:
    Self Banned Troll
    I think everything is absolutely refined and correct with turbo in fact I won over $900 using his tips last night I can't see how anybody would want him off the board he is simply great.
     

Share This Page