Roulette Undeniable proof for the "repeaters"

Gosh you really sound like a broken record since I ve read about these friends of yours I could swear that you copy paste your posts from different dated posts throughout these years..
To be honest Im giving them the benefit of the doubt since Im also giving you the same as crazy as it sounds that you hunt for defective wheels in an era of wheel laser manufacturing with precision that could leave no margin for errors.

Countback of unhits hits and repeats and a statistical perspective of how many repeats and unhits and hits you have in a given cycle, is a fact that could be exploited with a certain degree of accuracy (though certainly not 100%)
I suppose you've read them so I wont need to go into details about when and how tp use specific groups to bet.

 

Better yet, count the number of pockets on the wheel before you bet each spin and you'll discover that I'm correct.

Free your mind. Learn from the mistakes of others that traveled your path long before you were born.

Logic, common sense, and basic probability are not your enemy. Learn the basics.

 

Dear dear dear turbo. Do you self a favour and for once in you're life do some true testing. What this means if you test something an idea a system or a phenomenon etc etc. Also test the random variation of it. What does this mean?

For instance the idea you presented A. does it produces winners at 62% correct, correct! What is the win rate? We test the win rate and the win rate is less than 1:12. So again no edge but as we found out it is 62% so we test betting random streets the win rate is also less than 1:12.

We test again 1000's spins. Your idea A. the hit rate in the end is still 62% and the win rate is suprise suprise 1:12.3! We test again 1000's spins betting RANDOM. B. the hit rate in the end is around 50%and the win rate is surprise surprise 1:12.3!

So sweety pie where is exactly is the EDGE??? the repeaters haven't beaten the housed edge, your math is wrong!!!

Because you dont test, because you dont look at the opposite data, you always will be stuck, another 35 years maybe you will find out?

 

P.S. There is a 99.9% chance turbo will not answer to the post above. He never does answer when the true data is presented or too difficult questions are asked. See all threads before.

 

No it cant be exploited. It has been tested for 1000's of spins. And the data says betting that way will yield 1:37 on average. So what is there to exploit? See thats the problem you and others still have you cant program so you cant test 1000's of spins. To see the data. This is also turbos problem.

 

There's a 0.1% chance of me replying to a post like that, correct - learn to speak like an adult.

 

You clearly havent read in depth what these GUT WTF and KTF did otherwise you wouldnt mention the "program" concept.
You cannot program the process of critical thinking and especially the when you need to bet. Its not as mechanical as it seems and you couldnt insert/code all of the parameters needed to make betting decisions.

Also theyre not holy grails - they just need to win more than they lose. Same with Turbos systems.

 

I only believe in hard math facts. Not fairy tale hidden precognition secret math.

 

Good for you. Now be a man and answer the rest. The data showed 1:12.3 where is the edge? Random showed the exact same results, so again where are repeaters beating the house edge?

100% chance you will nit give a CLEAR answer to the above. Its going to be. "You did the test wrong."

 

Looks that he have his own math which he alone understand and in which even 1/40 can gave edge

 

What precognition secret math are you talking about?
The statistical facts of how many numbers will hit any given cycle are there for you to test.
But anyway each to their own.

Joining and posting in a roulette forum about hard math (LOL) facts is an oxymoron and you shouldnt mess with roulette at all.
Otherwise whats your reason of posting?

 

If you can not program it, then it is based on nonsense. But hey be my guest go lose you're shirt.

And also the statistical data in a cycle wont give you an edge either. This has bin shown before and before. But hey go you lose your shirt again.

 

Nonsense. I've heard this argument many times and it's incoherent. A program is just a list of instructions for the computer to carry out. If you can create a step-by-step instruction list for YOURSELF then you can also program a computer to carry it out, even it involves some kind of guessing, fuzzy logic, or a random element (just use the rand() function). The only "system" which is impossible to simulate is intuition or maybe precognition. If you believe in that kind of stuff then go for it (and make sure to take your rabbit's foot to the casino).

Winkel said that in order to use his system successfully you needed "gambler's intelligence". That's a great get-out clause, don't you think? It effectively insulates him against any critics. Can't win using the GUT? well obviously it means your gambling IQ is sub-par! (just don't blame the system). So rather ironically, you have to use your gut to win with the GUT, lol.

All systems are mechanical, otherwise they're not systems at all. If you have to make discretionary bets or use your judgement, and that makes the difference between winning consistently or not, then you might as well abandon the "system" and just use your "intuition". If the betting decisions you make aren't based on something real (math, or logic, or testing), then they're based on nothing but mysticism. On the other hand, if they ARE based on actual evidence and data then of course they can be coded.

 

In most systems that work, betting decisions are made on some kind of statistic and on some physical lows. To code, all is very hard I spent for that maybe 10 years and still am not happy what I did...
To code, of course, is possible, but all that is very similar to meteorological prognoses. I have few friends which do that saw even their comps ...
All is very very not simple

 

W hat is GUT?

 

Thank you once again for verifying the data for yourself and backing up my initial post as being accurate.

 

And could please be so kind to respond that both are at a 1:12.3 hit rate. Point being they are the same betting wise.

 

Coding a system based on physics would be much harder than one which uses only stats and past spins, progressions etc. I wouldn't even know where to start.

 

Great Universal Theory!

There is a book out by some guy called Randy Jones where he goes into great detail and he made a tracker as well. I think the full package is around $50. Now, don't get me wrong because I am not endorsing anything, but since you asked, it's only polite to point you in the right direction if you are interested. I could never get my head around Winkel's explanations and he seemed very arrogant and rude for someone who was trying to teach people his strategy.

For anybody who want's to learn for free. TwoCatSam did some good tutorials on YouTube and there is a free bit of software kicking around the net called ''Track 4'' which is very good and can be used for other roulette studies as well if you are interested in LOTT etc..

KNOCK...KNOCK.... Hold on! I think the maths police are at the door....

 

Neither could Winkel. His rules changed as each version of it was coded, tested, and proven to fail. In the end he said that it required "human intution". In other words, guessing.

The problem with the GUT and other silly versions like the KFC is that there's no logical reason as to why they should work since there are the same number of pockets on the wheel from one spin to the next.