• Welcome to #1 Roulette Forum & Message Board | www.RouletteForum.cc.

News:

Almost every system has been tested many times before. Start by learning what we already know doesn't work, and why.

Main Menu
Popular pages:

Roulette System

The Roulette Systems That Really Work

Roulette Computers

Hidden Electronics That Predict Spins

Roulette Strategy

Why Roulette Betting Strategies Lose

Roulette System

The Honest Live Online Roulette Casinos

Do we actually need long term winning methods to beat roulett?

Started by Amazin, Nov 02, 02:12 PM 2012

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

iggiv

speed, u love attention, that's why u start it with me again.
That's OK. Finally i will lose interest and ignore u. yeah i will write a book about u.
But it is not gonna be on a book paper and with ink.

iggiv

Rob, u together with somebody else  have fallen into a trap of classical Gambler's Fallacy. What u both are talking about is exactly the  Gambler Fallacy. Just read about it

link:://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler%27s_fallacy

i know it became a fashion among some guys here just bluntly blaming  anyone-- who does not agree with their views-- in "spreading gambler fallacies" without any proof, but this very thing  is well known and well defined. It does not even need any discussions. Period.

u r free of course to go on with your ideas about betting against "deviations", but this is just like betting cold with progression, not much difference. Thousands and thousands gamblers before u tried to do it with no success for hundreds years. Good luck.

Quote from: Robeenhuut on Nov 06, 02:33 AM 2012
Yeah  Speed

Only approach that i saw pass 1M spins but I'm aware that it  was just still a dumb luck. I bet that almost everybody that saw it would start playing it considering it a H.G  ;D And guess what would have happened? Its that most people here are ignorant of basic facts and once you start pointing them out either you are ignored or branded a negativity spreader.

Robeenhuut

Quote from: iggiv on Nov 10, 04:39 PM 2012
Rob, u together with somebody else  have fallen into a trap of classical Gambler's Fallacy. What u both are talking about is exactly the  Gambler Fallacy. Just read about itlink:://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler%27s_fallacyi know it became a fashion among some guys here just bluntly blaming  anyone-- who does not agree with their views-- in "spreading gambler fallacies" without any proof, but this very thing  is well known and well defined. It does not even need any discussions. Period. u r free of course to go on with your ideas about betting against "deviations", but this is just like betting cold with progression, not much difference. Thousands and thousands gamblers before u tried to do it with no success for hundreds years. Good luck.


Iggiv

This stuff i read in the elementary school  ;D And i would still prefer to bet as you call it against deviations than to use HAR. I wish that somebody that you accept as an authority posted a thesis about HAR fallacy. For now we have some success stories as Mr Pilot's fairytale French run that gave some hope that HAR works.

Regards
Matt

iggiv

i am not here to argue for arguing sake. Do what u like to do, i can accept hit-n-run as gambler fallacy and betting on cold with progression as winning method. Who cares about wiki, J. Patrick,
B. Morton and Lee Tutor. U guys know better.

Robeenhuut

Quote from: iggiv on Nov 11, 03:52 AM 2012
i am not here to argue for arguing sake. Do what u like to do, i can accept hit-n-run as gambler fallacy and betting on cold with progression as winning method. Who cares about wiki, J. Patrick,
B. Morton and Lee Tutor.
U guys know better.

There is a difference of opinions here, that's it. No more than that. It is not "70 bets in a row". It is 70 bets played from time to time. For u it is the same. But sorry, You can't say that John is lying.
If he is lying then You can blame for the same lies John Patrick, Lee Tutor, Brett Morton. Those are people well known in gambling world, and they do just what John L. does. They just use their methods which are well known unlike JL' methods. But they play the same way he does. Would they be surprised with JL results? no way, because their results are similar overall.


It beats me why you keep mentioning these guys and why you claim that their results are similar to JL. And just prove that im wrong about questioning JL stats. I guess that getting LLLW sequence 70 times in a row seems quite normal to you.  ;D

Regards
Matt

iggiv

Rob, i would better do something more useful than just fruitless arguing if u don't mind. thanks.
Believe me i have more interesting things to do.
I wish u to defeat roulette as gloriously as u defeated me in these endless arguments.

Do widzenija
:)



Robeenhuut

Quote from: iggiv on Nov 11, 08:39 AM 2012
Rob, i would better do something more useful than just fruitless arguing if u don't mind. thanks.
Believe me i have more interesting things to do.
I wish u to defeat roulette as gloriously as u defeated me in these endless arguments.

Do widzenija
:)

Iggiv

I enjoy arguing with you almost as much as with JL.  But he is gone at least temporarily so you sort of filled the void.  ;D And lets call it a draw.

Do widzenia i uslyszenia

Regards

Matt

iggiv

Rob, my goal here is not arguing for arguing sake as i said. I have been arguing to find out the truth, which is out there. To push u towards some useful ideas. But i can see the dead end now, my friend. That's why i am stopping arguing. It comes to nowhere.

Vic once said very smart thing to me. "To win you don't have to prove anyone anything but yourself".
That's it.

I believe i know what to do, i also believe u don't. Arguments are not gonna help.




-