QUESTION: Knowing why a method works?

[MrJ]

This is a subject that always interests me. If you play a method that works 'well', do you really need to know why? What if your math is not the best (like myself)? What if you do not hold any math degrees? In my opinion, I feel that LOTS of testing/playing is just as good (or better) than a degree. Too many players are afraid of the 2.7% or 5.26%, big deal I say.

Yes, you have to be CREATIVE as hell but for Gods sake, 5.26 is NOT that damn bad (in my opinion). I use a couple methods that have brought me VERY NICE profits but if you ask me WHY it works, I couldn't tell ya. Just because an author of a method can not FULLY explain the 'whys' or the 'hows', does not exactly mean the method does not work. Another point is....'the long run'.

What the heck does that even mean? So if a method is doing 'well' over 40K spins but tanks near the 7 billion spin mark......"the method failed, it sucks!" WTF?   So many testing DEFINITIONS are so TIGHT in roulette, a person would NEVER be happy with any attempt at winning. That's my blog/rant for the day.

Ken

[Jordan]

It isn t only the 2.7% or 5.26% that is making us losing.
It is also the nature of Randomness.
Now if you will combine the 2.7% or 5.26% + the Randomness you have the unbeatable game of Roulette.

It is so simple.

[MrJ]

'Combining' means that the 2.7 or 5.26 would be higher. So what is it then?

Ken

[Jordan]

I will explain it to you more analitic.

The -2.7 is the steady MATHIMATICAL DISADVANTAGE  of the game

The RANDOMNESS is something that can t be traped so it can make you lose some sessions with out needing the -2.7....

And as I posted above if you will combine the -2.7  +  Randomness  = Roulette

That is why it exists 400+ years  in the Casinos as a profitable mechanism for them.

[MrJ]

lol, Give me an updated number. If its not 2.7 or 5.26....with that scary randomness, what is the NEW percent I should be AFRAID of?

Ken

[Jordan]

As randomness is NOT steady....it can not be given to you a Steady NUMBER of disadvantage ......
In some sessions the disadvantage can be -70% in other can be +70

BUT in the LONG LONG LONG RUN the PURE disadvantage will be the steady math disadvantage that it is the -2.7.

If you can t understand this ...then I am  sorry.

In other words Randomness + the -2.7 disadvantage  are giving us hard time in our playing sessions.
And the -2.7  disadvantage by itself  is giving us the steady loss in the LONG run.

[flukey luke]

I would not feel comfortable playing a method if I did not have at least some idea of why it worked. I have stopped in the middle of playing a method many times because it just does not feel right. The idea is to try and lessen the gamble in gambling. I can't sit there and go through an emotional rollercoaster of highs and lows, that is just pure out and out gambling. Rather, I will try and treat it like a businessman would. I am there to protect my capital and bet when a good opportunity presents itself. You can only do this if you know 'why and where'  in the first place.  Luckily for me, I am only fighting against 2.7%. That is not such a big disadvantage as people make out. If you treat the odds with respect and don't bet when you know it is not a good idea,  the edge becomes an irrelevance.

[MrJ]

"I would not feel comfortable playing a method if I did not have at least some idea of why it worked" >>> I agree with that 100%.

@Jordan >> I dont want to read through hundreds of posts, what is your BEST posted method? Does the 2.7 (or 5.26) ever go higher for you? If yes, then why play it? 40% disadvantage would suck. If no, why does it NOT go higher for you BUT with  randomness, it can/should go higher for others?

Ken

[Jordan]

I have already answered ur questions in the above post.

[Twisteruk]

No. You dont need to know how it works, as long as it does work.


Its when it does not work, we tend to wonder why.

For example, I know how to use my microwave. Simple. Put food in push buttons=cooked food.

I do not know for the life of me how it does it. Yes I have a basic understanding that it uses microwaves to generate heat, BUT I dont know how it does that. Nor do I care, because IT WORKS.

If it only worked say 50% of the time, then I (we) would probally wonder why.


Anyway, thats my take on it.


If we all use Vic's Tool and it wins us money Im pretty confident most will choose, "do you want another session" than be sat there trying to work out how it does what it does.

[Jordan]

Yes but the WHY (this means HOW) the microwave works there is a genuine reason.
It is involved electronics+knowledje...

And even if YOU do not know WHY it works...there are other people (like the microwave inventor and the microwave enginiars ) that KNOW why and how it works....

So the genuine conclusion is that IF we don t know WHY and HOW something is working...then it CAN NOT work.

[Twisteruk]

So the genuine conclusion is that IF we don't know WHY and HOW something is working...then it CAN NOT work.

I disagree.

[MrJ]

"I have already answered your questions in the above post" >>> Where in the above posts does it mention YOUR method of choice? The method YOU play?

Ken

[Jordan]

My method of play is only Advantage-play.(VB)
When I have the time to spend in searching the correct wheels and their datas, I play.
When I don't have the time to do it...I just don't go there to gamble.

If I had a team I would play Advantage-play as a profession...Now that I don't its just a hobby

This why I posted in an other Topic that I can t consider my self as an advantage player.
For me Advantage Play is a profession and not a hobby

[Jordan]

In Roulette the only reason for a system to work(exept AP) would be the possibilities...and when i say possibilities I always mean that in the long run the sectors must have hit almost equal.

BUT we have all witness in several systems of possibilities that RANDOMNESS isn t obeyng to them....

So if we can t rely on them then we can t rely on anything...so we don t have any reason why a system to win.....

The hard proof is that NOONE till now have ever beat roulette in the long run