Roulette "You have to win flat betting"

I've seen the video. You should replace the word "pattern" with "proportion"; it's proportions (law of large numbers) which are predictable, not patterns. You might think I'm splitting hairs here, but the difference is crucial to understand. There are no predictable patterns in the random game, and we as players can only bet on one spin at a time, which means we must be able to predict the upcoming PATTERN better than random dictates. Betting for the proportion isn't enough because the payout is short and therefore even if you get the proportion right you still won't have enough wins. The proportions are predictable over many spins and the casinos rely on them for their edge. The law of large numbers is reliable and works not by balancing out what's already happened, but by diluting it with new spins.

Take an example of the red / black proportion in the last 100 spins; suppose there are 30 blacks and 70 reds which gives a proportion of only 0.3 for black. Black is sure to make a comeback in the next 100 spins, right? Wrong, if "comeback" means that black will hit higher than expectation. If it wins 50 times in the next 100 spins the new proportion will be 80/200 = 0.4, which is getting closer to 0.5, but you still haven't made a profit. Then there's the question of how many spins you look back - what is the "trigger"? Let's assume your theory is correct, the past 100 spins might be a "correction" of the 100 spins previous to that, where the outcome was 30 red and 70 black, in which case the next 100 spins is just a pure guess because red/black is already "balanced", at least with respect to the last 200 spins. So the choice of what constitutes the "right" number of spins over which the imbalance occurs is arbitrary. Take more and more spins and there is always less deviation, take fewer spins and the future deviation is less certain; either way the future outcomes are unreliable.

 

Turbo,

I don't really know what point it is that you're trying to make in your original post. You're kind of all over the place and almost contradicting yourself at times. Please clarify

1. Are you saying that bet sizing has an effect on the house edge?

2. Are you saying that bet sizing does NOT have an effect on the house edge?

3. Are you saying that a progression can turn a losing system into a winning system in the long run?

4. Are you saying that a progression can NOT turn a losing system into a winning system in the long run?

The problem is that you can't look beyond the next few spins and focus on the long term. You don't realize if the next spin has a negative expectation, then so does the next series of spins and so does the long term.

 

Hey Turbo could you please post the link for that video I don't think I was around for it

 

That's what I thought. And he seems to have shifted 180 degrees from a few months ago when it was ridiculous to bet anything other than hot numbers. Now it seems that cold numbers are the way to go, or at least cold numbers which have just hit after a long absence.

 

Indeed, originally it was betting numbers from spin 1 (past spins do not matter), as they show, with an aggressive progression ( at least 1-2-4-8-16-32). Then recently the Min interval Strategy resurrected playing the biggest interval numbers, and now the Law of the Third is the fashion of the moment!. But we are not smart and clever enough to see the link between them, which would allow us to discover the Ultimate HolyGrail 20% (at least) edge flat betting against this Devil Game!.

 

It's a beautiful thing.

 

That 20% edge claim seems a bit absurd too. I'd like to see how he made that calculation.

 

On RX against a 150 spins session, he started with 1000 monopoly bills and ended up with 1200. Numerical Application: [(1200-1000)/1000)]*100=+20%

 

There is no way I'll reap a steady 20% with a limited 3 step Grand Martingale.

 

Turbo can, and flat betting, this is the last minute information he gave us today.

 

He's purposefully vague. If not then he's more than a few cards short of a full deck.

 

Not necessarily. He mentioned previously that he uses however he plays MI in addition to his previous repeaters-with-positive-progression (1-5-25) method. He's never said that one invalidated the other, and has said that he rotates among them based on what is required at that moment.

There are a few other methods he also still uses and has mentioned as well, but I'm not going to name them if you're not going to remember what he's previously said bago. As the board's resident multi-decade TG archivist (stalker?) I expect better from you.

 

Great session - not a problems what-so-ever.
Flat betting @Bago.
Bet selection/betting on future known patterns to appear @Jerome.
Repeaters @Sir No One.
Can do this every day, at any table in any casino.

Stats worth mentioning :
Min numbers bet = 2
Max numbers bet = 8
Average numbers bet = 3.37
Unit size $10.00
Most bet on table any spin = $80 or 8 units
Least bet on table any spin = $10 or 1 unit
Average bet on table per spin = only $25.71 or 2 1/2 units.
98 spins total 80 spins bet on.
House edge... oops. My edge (Bago) = +57.14%
Had I lost at the house edge (as everyone says I'm supposed to)..
it would have been -2.70%... strange.

330 total straight up bets placed
14 wins
Total bet $2,520.00
Total won $3,960.00
Total lost $2,520.00
End balance +$1,440.00 (+144 units)
Max draw down only $370.00 (37 units)
(in only 98 spins had made almost 4 bankrolls).

Now please reply with what's expected.
Not enough spins.
Proves nothing.
Lies.
Voodoo and gypsies.
Fixed. Lucky. Variance.
Make up some new ones please, there's quite a collection going.

 

Turbo,

Why didn't you just play one spin?

 

Wow, very nice. Good session TG, impressive.

 

But wait Mako, you haven't seen the graph of my one spin!

 

Played one spin.
Beginning balance $3000
Hit Won $105,000
Ending bankroll $108,000 (Won $105,000)
In only one spin, didn't need to play more than one, because I made an improvement on Turbo's weak system.
Max drawdown, NONE.
Average numbers bet. 1

 

Does this stuff really impress your sycophants? You really do have a cult following, don't you. Do you perform mass marriages at your compound? Great idea. I'll bet you have a Roulette robe and all the little squirrels wear ascension costumes with militaristic rank insignia. What about a pointed jewel encrusted wizards hat? You got one of those?

 

Congrats Ed, great to see you had a very good day at the table.
But then again, all luck insn't it Taco, Sir No One, Gizmo an all other members from the Disney Club

 

I remember better than you. For the repeater HolyGrail he stated numerous times that it CAN'T WORK flat betting and stated to the Doctor that it won't work with a positive +1 progression, it needed at least 1-2-4-8-16-32 to work. Now the story has changed, it wins FLAT BET, which means this is a different system which picks the numbers differently and much more accurately, it seems logic but not for you obviously Mako, you are not very smart.

Everybody can brag he has the HolyGrail, there is no way he can lose, but when the time to show real evidence has come, suddenly the facts are not in line with the words written, Elvis knows this with the challenge 10$ to 25K, he lost it all the second day. But he continues to claim he has the secret of winning and we are not smart enough to discover it, yes it's sad to see how damaged a humain brain can be.

That's what would happen to Turbo also, but he is not as silly as Elvis to play for real money online at GoldenNuggets or Celtic Casino and show us real evidence, it will stay virtual on Facebook and RX graphs or Roulette Simulator. Next week I imagine he will locate himself at Las Vegas and he won 1 Million in 50 spins playing repeaters.