Roulette Undeniable proof for the "repeaters"

Lol at least you shared it with us. You have balls

 

He lost because he hasn't got the secret clue yet and that he doesn't apply the secret progression.

 

Holiday shits and giggles. Lol. JBJB ran off the wizard of vegas forums, for the second time, then, off the vegascasinotalk forum, ends up with the "nuts" here. Anyone have half a brain here? Lol. Johno must have lost his other ass. Haven't heard any yipping out of him, in a while.

 

Well at least 4 days before the end of this year, this thread has all the usual greatness TG's wall of text, pseudo psychoanalysis of Turbos ego or lack of it, the usual trolls lurking about, the hispanic guy rambling always in spanish, DrSAA spouting challenges etc..

It makes a fun read, like a big dysfunctional family festive gathering.

 

You forgot usual bootlickers praying for the new clue...

 

Exactly! I think we did ourselves proud this Christmas!

 

Now this is funny

 

and you know, i have a time machine too just like turbo! i saw that this rambling will continue next year!

 

But sometimes he has quite good ideas, at least he gave few such for me, of course maybe he himself about that not know .
Anyway, if he will know the math part slight better especially probabilities, I think he will understand a few main moments and then he will be able to look to all his systems from another side...and that can allow him to make really not the losing system.
On sequences where I tested his system, I did just a bit - slight changed his system and related it for automatical finding what fall more often, that was enough that results will change cardinal. Chart I posted...

 

You're going to make Turbo to ask you for a clue...

 

He know my answer

 

This thread has gone to 8 pages on nonsense when it reality it could have stopped at the first post
of mine.
There's been people claiming it's a system - there's been people trying to diagnose me -
there's even been people backing up my proof while not even realizing that they've done so.
It's certainly strange......
I've repeated the proof and the data too many times already

We are using 50% or less of the table and getting a correct prediction 62.5% of the time.
It's that simple - there's nothing else to argue about unless it's just trolling posts.
I explained it clearly (and then told I didn't explain it clearly).
I gave examples so anyone could reproduce the results (yet supposedly there's some secret)
I even gave video examples because it still wasn't clear - and that didn't help.
Not enough spins, too many numbers, nonsense.
Nothing disputes the original proof (because nothing can) that repeaters give the
player an edge. If anyone can prove otherwise - feel free. It can't be done.

It would be the same as to argue that in 12 spins there won't be on average 8 streets
that appear and 4 that repeat. But misfits will deny this happens too.
It's already been proven, but no..... it doesn't happen.
24 numbers appearing in 36 spins - 12 repeaters - doesn't happen.....
It's no different than what I posted the thread for -
Playing a max of 50% of the streets in a dozen produces a correct prediction 62.5%
of the time - which to them is impossible.

I understand... Roulette isn't for everyone.

 

Exactly!!! In Turbo's perfect world, nobody questions him.

Don't worry, you're in good company.....

 

In lieu of a comment I rather fave a "Like" to Turbo`s post above .

 

Another meaningless troll post that isn't on-topic.
Either dispute my data or keep trolling - It looks like you've made your decision already.

 

I pointed your mistake you finish as a win in 60% ( not 62.5% as you say ) but in total, you still win less than lost .

So i have done enough - simply gave by steps all calculations and pointed to your math mistakes...

Of course, everyone is without you

 

And here is the best and the crucial question of this thread:

Turbo, you say this gives a player the edge - then, why this isn't the "holy grail"? If it does give the edge - then there would be no need for any system. Over the long term, if you have the edge - you win... Isn't it so?

Please don't tell that this is another trolling post... It's clear and straightforward question...

 

Hmm, after re-looking at Turbos video I didn’t do it the same . I’ll have another go when time permits.

 

Play SHORT Term and get your tochas away from the table after 3- 11 spins and you got your edge------ win or lose .


Baby sitting service not provided .

 

Fine - use your own number then and agree with the results.....
When you play 50% of the available streets in a dozen, you're prediction is correct 60% of the time.
Ok ? I'll drop it to 60 just for you, and now you can see hopefully there is a clear difference between
being right 50% of the time (as expected) and being right 60% of the time (advantage to the player).
There's nothing to argue about here.... whew - glad that's over. Thank you.

So then how does 60% actual results compare to 50% which is the played locations ?
Unless I'm really wrong, 60% is more than 50% and the house edge is what ? (yes, we know).
Thank you again for backing up my proof and data.

Well this isn't a system - (again.........and again......) this is a proof that shows repeaters appearing at
a higher rate than "any randomly picked bets". It shows repeaters beating the house edge.
How to make it into a playable system ? Well we run into the problem of spin counts - as the number
of spins required to close out all 3 dozens exceeds the amount required to profit by flat betting.
But as you said - if you have the math edge it should be possible -
I posted a rough example off of the top of my head,
but try yourself... See what works... test... or don't even go down this road if you aren't satisfied
that there is a way to win here.