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

News:

Progression bets are nothing more than different size bets on different spins. You could get lucky and win big, or unlucky and lose even more.

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

Golden Peak

Started by Blue_Angel, Aug 09, 12:52 PM 2016

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

MrJ

Here is my biggest issue.....what can happen vs. what won't happen and FINDING a middle ground. Meaning, that 23 hits after not hitting for 300 spins.

Could that 23 now go unhit again for the next 900 spins? Come on now. Lets drop the..."but it could happen" routine. I mean, anything CAN HAPPEN if we get super technical. Red might hit for 700 straight spins....but it could happen (lol). You cant BUILD a decent method based off that, its ludicrous.

Ken



Watch us big doggs, the MEN, play at a REAL casino, on a REAL table. All we ask is that you stay out of our way. The rest? Bots, airball, RNG...that's more for the Kitty Kat Klub. Its the big doggs and the kittens!! Winning is not an event, it's a process and it takes YEARS and YEARS to master > link:://:.eonline.com/eol_images/Entire_Site/2014127/rs_560x415-140227131132-1024.bulldog-kittens3.jpg... To be great, you have to be willing to be mocked, hated and misunderstood.

Blue_Angel

QuoteThe probability of 1,1,1 is exactly the same as 1,2,3 or 1,1,2 or 2,2,2, or 3,2,1.

So according to you this:
18
6
8
6
23
17
10
33
18
19
4
1
8
29
28
14
0
35
10
4
12
25
7
23
2
27
25
3
6
28
26
5
18
10
0
8
13
Has the same probability with that:
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Your probability is perfectly reasonable!
Who could argue with that!

QuoteThe probability is not what makes roulette negative expectation - it's the unfair payouts for the odds.

What it matters is to win, a minor profit because of the unfair payouts is still better than losing.
What makes us lose is the variance and not less profit.
It's like you are claiming that a business could be terminated because of the taxes!

I suggest you do the following experiment, place two bets simultaneously, one on red and the other on black, find out how long it would take to lose your bankroll.
While one who is doubling up continuously will lose his bankroll in just a few spins.

QuoteI'm not sure what you mean by "results are altering". And your reference to "flow"

Perhaps you should buy a dictionary.

QuoteI assume means past spins like 1,1,1,1,1, but they have no influence on future spins, so no influence on the odds.

They don't have to, everything is a cycle and history repeats again and again like a deja vous.

Steve

Quote from: Blue_Angel on Aug 10, 12:14 AM 2016So according to you this:
18, 6 ....

Has the same probability with that:
1, 1.....

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.

How often will you see 1,1,1? How often will you see 1,2,3? Or 3,2,1? They each have the same probability, and on average will occur the same amount of times.

I think where most people dont get it is they have never seen 1,1,1,1,1,1,1, so they assume they can make a system based on it. But have they ever seen 32,14,4,1,8,12,17?

Quote from: Blue_Angel on Aug 10, 12:14 AM 2016What it matters is to win, a minor profit because of the unfair payouts is still better than losing.

Any profit, over the long term, is only assured if you overcome the unfair payouts. And this is only possibly by increasing accuracy of predictions.

Quote from: Blue_Angel on Aug 10, 12:14 AM 2016What makes us lose is the variance and not less profit.

No, what makes us lose is unfair payouts for the odds. Variance is nothing but plain statistics. Variance basically means "things wont be exactly as expected".

Quote from: Blue_Angel on Aug 10, 12:14 AM 2016It's like you are claiming that a business could be terminated because of the taxes!

No it's nothing like that.

Quote from: Blue_Angel on Aug 10, 12:14 AM 2016I suggest you do the following experiment, place two bets simultaneously, one on red and the other on black, find out how long it would take to lose your bankroll. While one who is doubling up continuously will lose his bankroll in just a few spins.

All that would prove is larger bets means larger losses. It's a simple concept.

QuotePerhaps you should buy a dictionary.

I have one, but prefer dictionary.com. Your wording "results are altering", depending on the context, could mean a few things like:

a. Results are always changing
b. Results are "due" eventually

You did not give clear context, so I dont really know what you were saying.

Quote from: Blue_Angel on Aug 10, 12:14 AM 2016They don't have to, everything is a cycle and history repeats again and again like a deja vous.

Actually history is a never-ending unfolding of events, with ever-changing variables. To some degree, history does repeat. That's because the variables that determine the winning number are similar enough. But if you mean RRBBRRBB means B will spin after RRBBRRB, then no history doesn't repeat with any greater probability than R spinning next.

I'm all up for rational debate, but what you are saying so far isn't correct. It isnt my opinion. It is clear fact anyone can see with proper testing.
"The only way to beat roulette is by increasing the accuracy of predictions"
Roulettephysics.com ← Professional roulette tips
Roulette-computers.com ← Hidden electronics that predicts the winning number
Roulettephysics.com/roulette-strategy ← Why most systems lose

Turner


Quote from: Steve on Aug 10, 05:07 AM 2016I think where most people dont get it is they have never seen 1,1,1,1,1,1,1, so they assume they can make a system based on it. But have they ever seen 32,14,4,1,8,12,17?

1,1,1,1,1,1,1         = 1-((1/36^7)) = 78 Billion:1

32,14,4,1,8,12,17 = 1-((1/36^7)) = 78 Billion:1


RouletteGhost

Turner n steve r correct

But i understand where hes coming from

Some things just wont happen
the key to winning with systems : play for a statistically irrelevant number of spins

link:[url="s://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nmJKY59NX8o"]s://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nmJKY59NX8o[/url]

Steve

Rg that's where the illusion is. Everything will happen eventually. And theres no difference between one number and another. What matters is odds vs payout. This is actually very old news. As old as gambling.  It's just that most gamblers don't understand it. That's why casinos exist.
"The only way to beat roulette is by increasing the accuracy of predictions"
Roulettephysics.com ← Professional roulette tips
Roulette-computers.com ← Hidden electronics that predicts the winning number
Roulettephysics.com/roulette-strategy ← Why most systems lose

Turner

Quote from: RouletteGhost on Aug 10, 07:01 AM 2016Some things just wont happen
but think this way, all things that "wont happen", as you say, happen every spin.

Somethings got to happen

RouletteGhost

Quote from: Turner on Aug 10, 07:55 AM 2016
but think this way, all things that "wont happen", as you say, happen every spin.

Somethings got to happen

Yes. But some things wont happen
the key to winning with systems : play for a statistically irrelevant number of spins

link:[url="s://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nmJKY59NX8o"]s://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nmJKY59NX8o[/url]

Blue_Angel

Quote from: Turner on Aug 10, 06:49 AM 2016
1,1,1,1,1,1,1         = 1-((1/36^7)) = 78 Billion:1

32,14,4,1,8,12,17 = 1-((1/36^7)) = 78 Billion:1

If these 2 sequences have equal possibility, then number 1 is 6 times more probable to hit than 32, 14, 4, 8, 12 and 17

Blue_Angel

QuoteActually history is a never-ending unfolding of events, with ever-changing variables. To some degree, history does repeat. That's because the variables that determine the winning number are similar enough.

At least we agree on this one.

Blue_Angel

Quote
a. Results are always changing
b. Results are "due" eventually

There's not "black" or "white" but shades of grey...

Blue_Angel

QuoteAll that would prove is larger bets means larger losses. It's a simple concept.

Larger bets could also mean larger profit, the "coin" has 2 sides...

Blue_Angel

QuoteIt's like you are claiming that a business could be terminated because of the taxes! BA

No it's nothing like that. Steve

Now you are contradicting yourself, when you say that 2.7% is the reason for everyone who loses, it is like you are claiming that every business wouldn't be viable because of the taxation, of course it's far from truth because there are more important factors which could harm financially a business!

Blue_Angel

QuoteNo, what makes us lose is unfair payouts for the odds. Variance is nothing but plain statistics. Variance basically means "things wont be exactly as expected".

I don't agree with the first part, but I agree with the second part.

In order to lose because of the house edge (unfair payouts) all events have to balance (this is your first assumption) at some point (this is very vague).

But let's assume that all events will balance out at some point in time, one has to bet 5,000 or 50,000 or 500,000 times (wherever your vague point is) black and if he is ahead to keep betting another  5,000 or 50,000 or 500,000 times the same in order all outcomes to even out and eventually lose by 2.7%.

Don't you think that this theory involves too many assumptions, too many ifs?
1) results have to balance out (really?)
2) at some point (too vague, when??)
3) the player must stick to the same bet selection for all the time (unless there is rule which obliges you to do so nobody has to do it this way)

Blue_Angel

QuoteHow often will you see 1,1,1? How often will you see 1,2,3? Or 3,2,1? They each have the same probability, and on average will occur the same amount of times.

I think where most people dont get it is they have never seen 1,1,1,1,1,1,1, so they assume they can make a system based on it. But have they ever seen 32,14,4,1,8,12,17?

If what you claim was true then number 1 would be 2 times more possible than numbers 2 and 3 and on your second sequence 1 would be 6 times more probable than 32,14,4,8,12 and 17!

You have been misguided for years, don't blame yourself, you just represent the mainstream theory.

-