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

Roulette-focused => Main Roulette Board => Topic started by: VLS on May 23, 03:04 PM 2010

Title: The trick to randomness
Post by: VLS on May 23, 03:04 PM 2010
Here's a quote from Gizmo I liked:

Quote from: GizmotronNormal hot numbers hit within 15 to 20 spins, across a 300 spin stretch, on average. So any number that goes past 30 should be switched to another hot number. The trick to randomness is in making changes that work. So find a good reason to change numbers, and when, and you should have a very good system.

So basically, the "state of constant change" we heard referred to roulette can be what brings the consistency (at other interpretation level) that some use to profit!

"Change with the game, be one with the change"  ;)
Title: Re: The trick to randomness
Post by: Gizmotron on May 23, 03:32 PM 2010
That's right. Spike says to practice attempting to gain experience from making those changes. Then it becomes your experience that you draw upon. It becomes your observations of what is happening. It leads to your solutions. It must be a known thing. It must be an instant reaction drawn from knowing what to do. Just like a professional tennis player. Although they think strategically, they react instantly and instinctively. That's the primary reason a method should never be taught to anyone. At least not to a degree that so many come forward as a throng doing the same dang thing.
Title: Re: The trick to randomness
Post by: VLS on May 23, 05:31 PM 2010
Yep. We both are talking about the same thing.

Quote from: Gizmotron on May 23, 03:32 PM 2010
it becomes your experience that you draw upon. It becomes your observations of what is happening. It leads to your solutions.

Quote from: VLS on May 23, 03:04 PM 2010
consistency (at other interpretation level)

I ment exactly the "game within a game" concept, where you "transform" your experienced set of actuals and put it into your own frame of reference.

The curious thing is with all of the possible betting locations the roulette game has, nobody is "right" and nobody is "wrong". People just see the events they choose to see and chart.

This is why when I see the even chances versus straight-up numbers debate in progress, I only see lack of comprehension of the game. Both players (even chance and single numbers) can transform their actuals in their own game and elaborate their own solutions. Both are valid, within the realms of their own "game".