Sorry guys....I read my post again..and I looks like Im kinda bragging That I have some wonderful system.
That graph is genuine and played as if live.
My point was that there are methods here that are technically better and make more sense than the Turbo era.
Theories that he was unaware of

I will share in a separate post....let me test some more...but its plain to see from the graph its D'Alembert progression


This is MrJs post on Turbo

and the same numbers, played on RX with total honesty, using an EC idea I developed.


This is my difference in playing Turbo style and playing what i have learned.


You can't bang away with a set of the same numbers for 37 spins. You have to look at NOW

Quote from: NathanDetroit on October 26, 2013, 07:44:50 PM
Turbo, what a cat !

Some years  ago  he was to meet me  at a  roulette  table    ( for him nearby) at an  Atlantic City casino. He was a no show.

Discussion about his no show  might still be  in the old GG archives.



El Braggado . Big Windbag.Big EGO .


Nathan Detroit

of course...your personal experience is unfortunate, and formulated your said view.


Personally, as a rookie, I have Turbo to thank for my introduction and interest in Roulette.


He made me fascinated in the aspects of roulette I had never imagined.


As i have pointed out thought...it seems very misguided now as I re-read years later.


Reminds me of Aaron Nimzowitsch


he wrote "THE" iconic chess book "My System" written in the 30's


It inspired Kasparov, Karpov and many other GMs.


The book, mostly, is now is theoretically redundant 

After 37 spins,
we have D2 with the most sleepers with 6.


14,17,19,20,22,23
D1, D3 opposite positions on the carpet to this are


1,3,4,6,9,12   and 25,27,28,30,33,36


5u on each. add 5 on a win


Play for 37 spins.


duisberg20130101_0209

7
13
16
13
5
10
32
24
25
2
27
29
27
3
30
35
0
12
34
21
16
12
31
18
33
10
26
36
24
25
2
27
27
1
13
15
5
18
35
35
8
2
26
23
9
33
28
32
16
29
8
20
26
12
35
18
22
6
1
32
20
1
20
32
3
21
19
12
4
25
27
12
18
9

I am the Turbo tester. Simple to inventive to darn complex.
Sams right. He says $1500 in 37 spins...wnat about th minus 500?

When i was learning....he seemed cool. He now seems naive..
Im sure he bankrupt before he got better.
If you trust my word....this doesn't work.

Sorry Pockets....saw this late. Aguaro is on a roll. 8 goals in 6 games. his even heading them in....which shows his on a roll. His header at weekend was his first in the premier league.


its the partnership with the excellent Negrado. These 2 together will score goals.


Dzeko couldnt hit a cows ar.se with a banjo.


Chelsea next....a tricky one. Away....we have only just started winning.


But ...David Luiz is dodgy at best.


I can't call it......score draw?

Drazen...in UK....its "In My Opinion"
a way of saying you don't agree ....but in a non offensive way. IMHO is even less offensive
You will get a better chance of being listened to than.....
"Rub.bish...you don't know what you are talking about " [smiley]aes/tongue.png[/smiley]

Subtle misuse of a second language is common. Its difficult to avoid misunderstanding

Skakus....nice to see you are a keen recycler

its like another world than UK.....Im shocked.


59 shootings in my city.


does that sound a lot?


does it sound a lot when i tell you its over 15 years?

Interestng so far Pockets....Read my signature

So Mike...youve made your point. Its been observerved. I can't disagree with most of what ypu are saying.
What is your goal here....to educate us all in things we already know?
We all wake up ...smell the coffee and quit roulette?
Your only wrong assumption is that everyone here are blinkered.
I know it's a neg exp. Game. I know the HE and what it means
People just like talking here...and sharing the best ways.
I know drinking can kill you. I still drink
Just tell us what you want us to do
Lets get honest here....
Quid pro quo.....
Im Turner. I've never had another name in forums.Always Turner.

Your turn......

Quote from: Mike on October 21, 2013, 07:25:38 AM

Turner, you can't have it both ways. If you win more than you lose - CONSISTENTLY (ay, there's the rub), then why can't you build up your bankroll over time so that eventually, you ARE making a living at it?

I think i answered that. You would expose more money and time to the HE.
I don't win consistently do I ?..because I lose some days..I just win more than I lose.

Quote from: Mike on October 20, 2013, 07:37:41 PM


Turner,


I assume your last post was directed at me. You're making a few assumptions there, and Sam made the same; he assumed that I must be 'bitter and twisted' because I was never able to find a 'way through' roulette, as you put it. But I have to repeat that this is merely a personal attack and is totally beside the point. If you're going to attack anything, attack the math - the argument that roulette cannot be beaten.


Are you aware that there is a watertight argument that no winning system is possible?


Many members are vaguely aware of something called the 'house edge', but it seems to be something that never applies to them!
Let me try another tack; don't you find it a little odd that in the 300 years or so since roulette was invented, a consistently winning roulette system has never been demonstrated? Furthermore, don't you find it a bit curious that highly educated professional mathematicians are, in your view and many others, completely wrong?

Please could you direct me to where I can find the solution clearly explained with examples?

@Mike,


You have me wrong. I wasn't really aiming it at you.


I don't believe in HG or CWM


I do believe you can win more than you lose. I do.


You have to see your losses as part of your bad luck. Bad luck = HE and random


Importantly, you have to forget making a living out of it. by becoming a pro gambler, you don't change anything other than your exposure to HE and Random.


Give me any system, and i will give you a set of losing numbers.


Even if you think they are silly like RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR0RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR or 22,1,22,1,22,22,22


If they can happen they will.


Now it gets silly...sorry


I believe random has limits....and you carry your own permanence around with you.


You should note the numbers you expose yourself to and make a judgement on them.


Not in testing...just live numbers as you observe them


I started recording my numbers and backward engineer them to decide what I will play.


Now you think Im a nut and can disregard all I say from now on lol

Quote from: Atlantis on October 19, 2013, 10:47:01 AM

Hi Graildigger,
Maybe you're right. I remember Gizmotron posted something similar a while back... Here it is:

A.

Its good to see the big picture. I can see many 4 series of single doz


I wouldn't of formed the same idea as gizmo by looking at these results....not saying his wrong, just saying I don't see it here.