Roulette Undeniable proof for the "repeaters"

This stuff is like watching a tv show about the paranormal crap!

 

It's also fun watching to see how many different fake posters Turbo will create.

 

Well to be honest Dr Sir Anyone Anyone, I have to agree. Like you said, Kon Fu Sed put it through the grinder and it failed. Then the usual BS excuses came out similar to all that ''Dr'' Blakey stuff. People just don't like the truth. Well it hurts even more losing real money!

 

If Winkel is involved ------------RUN for cover , LOL



Thanks for the explanation .

ND

 

I'm not sure why that would be relevant.
The thread is about predicting a 50/50 outcome at higher than 50% -
which we have both shown is the case using the specified bet selection.
Actually predicting correctly at a rate 12% better than expected.
That's pretty impressive, I'm glad you were here to witness it.

If I said that I could predict a 50/50 red/black (no 0) at better than 50% long term,
you would call me a fool - but here we are. 62% success rate on a 50/50 location
proves my point, downright amazing.

 

You should talk to the admin about that then and back up your absurd claims....
no, don't. Admitting you are wrong isn't something you're capable of.

 

You talk the same and the same what to do copypaste what i wrote ?

And that we most see on Turbo posts

 

No, just proves that you're inexperienced and that you're testing insignificantly small samples.

Question, if I predict that red will hit on one spin, and I win, can I brag that my success rate is 100% for a 50/50 location?

 

You still dont answer. With the above you still are saying that your way is better. Even if both methods are exactly the same. I do it turbos way, hit rate 1:12.3. I do it random hit rate 1:12.3. Again where is the benefit of doing it your way? I'm really curious

 

He slight hide all he first bet 25% then 50% and wins 62.5%. Finally understood from where he takes that 62,5% that is 50%+25%/2. Nice math

 

Of course not - you would need to show this works over time - 1 spin would only mean you won 1 time.
If you read my initial post you would see that this was over a long period of time... 1,000+ spins
I didn't win on 1 spin and then claim the math to be something that it wasn't.
But you know better - keep trolling.

 

Wow - Sir No One bragged about your math ability.... I guess that was nonsense obviously.

If I play 1 street, it's 25%
If I play 2 streets, it's 50% - it never goes above that.
I predict the correct outcome 62% of the time....

If you'd stop running in circles spouting "math" that you obviously don't know - then
we could move on... but no, let's get to 20 pages to argue about what I proved in 1 post.

 

Yes, the math is amusing as well.

 

Again...... there is no method here.
If you want to make it into one, feel free. I posted data from testing.
I surely didn't post a "method" at all..... if you see one then please share it with the class.

 

Method or not no matter , but math must be right, so once more time - read and try to understand :

 

@turbo,
You must understand - nice that you create systems, that is perfect.
But if your systems will be based on 2x2=5 - will not be good not for reaters not for you himself...

 

"If win we in the second spin we win 3 if win in the third spin - we win 1.
Now can be the second mistake - he thinks that to win in the third spin he has 18/38 chances - that is not right that will come that third spin he must lose in the second spin and that has chance 29/38 so to win in the third spin we have chance only (29/38)*(18/38)=0.3615

So now we can calculate all...
That will be simpler write what will be if we will play 100 cycles
24 times we will win in second spin x3 = benefit 24*3=72
36 times we will win in third spin x1 = benefit 36*1=36
Total wins are 36+72=108
And in
40 times we will lose 3 so damage 40*3=-120

As we see on average in 100 cycles we will lose about 12 chips."

Turbo,

Why do your calculations differ from Benas's calculations?

 

Ok, let's cut this BS.



Here's the video of me playing completely opposite of what Turbo claims in this thread.

I picked streets randomly (tried to avoid repeaters as much as I could without focus)... 76.67% W/L ratio... As said in the description of the video - this is complete nonsense and lack of understanding "math" - it would eventually drop to 62.5% W/L ratio and that's it — nothing to exploit there as it's perfectly normal and what's expected...

Please let's all stop wasting our lives on this thread...

 

I also tested Turbo's "possible holy grail" in other thread... It failed even harder...

 

I’ll add my thoughts. Feel free to critique!

I believe the math like everything else is relative. Depends on how you look at it. You can’t change the payout, that we all know is the advantage the casino has.

If we take for example Turbos calculation to be true, it’s not 50/50 and it’s 65%, it still does not guarantee a winning long term. It all boils down to timing.

In 100 spins, turbo should win 65 times.
In 200 spins, turbo should win 130 times and so on.

Let’s take 100 spins. In reality you could lose 35 straight times before winning 65 straight times. Unlikely but still probable. You would not have the bankroll nor probably the table limit to allow you to recover.

And this can happen day after day after day. You’re so unlucky that every time you decide to play, you’ve ended up against a losing streak.

Repeats do happen. Is just whether you pick the right time to play them.