Is roulette spins truly random ?
I came back to take the trouble to write my findings and thoughts about the roulette game. My purpose is to point you gamblers to the path of facts and reality. Even this is communicated wrongly to the public. My intention is to hopefully correct this common error and for the general public to better understand this game of roulette. And how to deal with the multitude of claims on forum, are they true or are they bullshit.
I am not perfect in my writings nor am I eloquent nor persuasive. I just deliver the facts as best as I can.
Let begin in next series of post. Respond to this thread after I have completed.
The game of roulette is a game of spins whose result is generated by the physical wheel and ball for live wheel games and there is the rng game.
The idea of the game is that the spins are random. Betters bet on random results which offer no biased info both to the better as well to the casino.
The key basis of this game is random spins.
By the word random, it means that future outcome is not predictable.
However, since the spins are generated by the dealer with the wheel and ball, this means that if one measures the relevant physical attributes, one can use these variables to select bias pockets to hit, this makes the outcome no more random.
AP, roulette computers fall under this category.
Therefore, the industry is vigilant to weed out such players they deem as cheating.
So, for the rest of the non-AP or rc players we are left to play random spins.
And by random, it means future outcome is not predictable.
To suggest otherwise is theorectically and logically nonsensical.
Anyone claiming otherwise is bullshit. That's easy to call. Gamblers are blinded by gamblers fallacy, mostly out of ignorance.
By this post, you should be able to assess that ALL systems on this forum and ALL other forums to be losing strategies. They all offer zero predictive value.
Do waste your precious time with exotic looking re-representations of random roulette spins. Representing random roulette spins in whatever exotic fashion will still result with outcomes. Nothing has changed. Random remains random no matter what exotic lens you wear to look at it.
The only change is the distortion in your mind that caused the illusion that it is not random. The truth is such claims is bullshit. Period.
Well, this brings us back to reality. Betters of roulette spins cast their bets on random spins which is not predictable.
What is the next step ?
If random spins are random, there is no next step. You bet on random spins, that's it. Nothing more to go on.
I wrote a few other posts, and they got lost. So I stop today. If I have the time I continue later. Else
Anyway, read the title, you get the idea of this no nonsense, no bullshit thread.
The thread every gambler should read.
Quote from: luckyfella on Sep 12, 11:19 PM 2019
And by random, it means future outcome is not predictable.
To suggest otherwise is theorectically and logically nonsensical.
Let's be clear as a bell here, can we? Future outcomes are not predictable. I will say this again so that it gets past the sound of this sounding like it is being in disagreement. Future outcomes are not predictable.
Does that prevent coincidences from taking place? Does this power of unpredictability actually stop coincidences from occurring. Does probability statistics know when a trend will start? How about how long a trend will continue. Does unpredictability cause all visible trends to end exactly at the moment that you recognize them? Does this power know when a trend will end? It appears that predictability or the lack of it has no power over randomness. I'm so glad that we cleared that up.
Is it possible to take advantage of a coincidence if you see a symmetric pattern to it? Does the lack of predictability prevent that? Does statistics prevent anyone from taking advantage of coincidental observation of opportunities? Is there a probability police that does more than just ridicule some people if they utter heresy against their way of thinking? Can the probability police keep a player from winning? These are less than important questions if you want to keep things secret.
Is it a secret to beat a casino using randomness as an asset and not as an enemy?
Quote from: Steve on Sep 13, 03:17 AM 2019
But there is no such dependence.
This is the crux of the discussion.
By random spins, this must mean that future spins are independent of past spins. To claim anything else is talking stupid. Lets not waste our time.
Which brings us to the discussion proper.
Is roulette spins truly random ?
If the spins are random then this must mean that future spins are independent.
I am not referring to AP and rc version of random where there's cause and effect on the physical aspect of the dealer, wheel and ball.
I am referring to just plain inadulterated random spins, is roulette spins random ?
In this segment focused on whether roulette spins are random we get a host of claims by gurus of a few popular thread.
Vaddi pairs, Dyslexic php, RRBB derived stream and so on......
All of them suggest claims that roulette spins are in some way not fully random. That future spins are in some way connected to past spins in some voodooish fashion.
Imo, for such claims to hold there must be some reason, math rationale why there might be dependency.
Personally I have not wrap my head around what has been posted on forums to justify that such voodooish exotic rerepresentation of random spins can accord this status of dependency.
Conclusion - bullshit, until I get to see the logic why I have to change my mind.
People, at the very least for your own sake, don't be bedazzled by persuasive writings and glamorous exotic representations of simple roulette spins that mislead you to believe that random spins are magically connected to each other, they don't. That's stupid thinking and stop spreading stupid thinking on forums, keep such delusionary stupid thoughts to yourself.
Is roulette spins truly random ?
Forget about all those systems on forum. They offer nothing about this crucial issue.
Ask the basic question about dependence. Without dependence, future spins is unpredictable, end of the road. Everything else is stupid talk.
If roulette spins are independent, then roulette spins are random.
If roulette spins are dependent, the roulette spins are not random.
Everything is hinged on this point.
Another point often referred to on forums is statistics.
There are continuous 10reds so the current statistical count shows that black has a higher probability to hit.
Sorry guys, this type of statistics do not apply to random spins. Key word is random. With random, variance can throw you a lot more reds, it's theoretically unbounded. Your statistics is useless or to put it correctly, your usage of statistics is incorrect or inappropriate for random spins.
Quote from: Steve on Sep 13, 03:17 AM 2019
But there is no such dependence.
So, is steve 100% correct with his statement ? Not 99.9999999% but 100% beyond a shadow of a doubt that steve and caleb leans on all the mathematicians in this world that says the same. Did they ?
Can they possibly be wrong ?
If they are spot on correct, as steve says basic high school math, then roulette spins are random.
All other claims are bullshit and mere delusion posted by stupid people or by people with the intent to mislead. Ofc for commercial gains or some form of psycho issues.
If steve's statement is 100% correct, ALL systems strategies on this forum and others as well are ALL losers.
There cannot be a situation where spins are random and we talk about predicting future spins. That's stupid talk.
The entire systems strategy forum is trash nonsense. It's basic high school math. No genius required.
Sorry guys, that's the hard truth. Thank me for telling you this. You don't need me telling you, you already know this. Just need someone else to shake you out of your delusionary state.
That's what this thread is all about.
No bullshit. Just the facts.
Take time to read carefully, understand it carefully what I've taken the trouble to write on this forum. The rest is up to you.
Stop all your current research work or discussion. Go direct to the core point.
Answer this question the title of this thread ask,
Is roulette spins truly random ?
Give this topic your utmost attention because your answer will naturally lead you to your appropriate course of action. Everything else is moot.
Thanks for reading. Cheers
Of course roulette spins are random. Who says otherwise? Unless the casino is cheating you roulette spins are independent random events. However...
Large groups of roulette spins obey laws. The law of large numbers and the law of probability.
Random is not a free for all. Random doesn't mean anything is possible. There are expectations to be met. That's why you don't see series of 100 blacks or the same number hit consecutively 10 times.
While one spin can be any of the 37 numbers, when we add more and more spins to our sample then the statistical characteristics to our sample become more and more predictable.
Do we know anything about the next spin?
No.
Do we know anything about the next 10 spins?
Yes. We know they will not be all of them the same number.
Do we know anything about the next 100 spins?
Yes, we know they won't be the same number or the same split or the same dozen etc.
etc.
This knowledge doesn't translate to a precise prediction of the outcome. However, by excluding some possibilities/scenarios, we indirectly, slightly improve the accuracy of prediction. Now this is the concept. How you can take it to the next level and really use it in real play is another discussion.
Note that 100 Blacks in a row IS theoretically possible. As is a 10-times repeater.
One last post. The posts above come across as something basic, nothing special that everyone knows - Useless posts.
Let me tell you this, these series of posts is the solid foundation upon which you make progress if any. Without this nothing is possible. You either get it or you don't - the rest is bullshit. And you know it.
Quote from: luckyfella on Sep 13, 03:59 AM 2019If roulette spins are independent, then roulette spins are random.
Not quite. Outcomes can be biased but still independent, and if biased they're not random, so independence doesn't necessarily mean random. For randomness you need both independence and unbiased outcomes.
Quote from: Joe on Sep 13, 05:47 AM 2019
Not quite. Outcomes can be biased but still independent, and if biased they're not random, so independence doesn't necessarily mean random. For randomness you need both independence and unbiased outcomes.
You are correct, thanks for the correction. :thumbsup:
Quote from: Kav on Sep 13, 04:47 AM 2019Large groups of roulette spins obey laws. The law of large numbers and the law of probability.
Random is not a free for all. Random doesn't mean anything is possible. There are expectations to be met. That's why you don't see series of 100 blacks or the same number hit consecutively 10 times.
Yes but this doesn't mean that future spins can be predicted from past spins.
Quote from: luckyfella on Sep 13, 04:20 AM 2019All other claims are bullshit and mere delusion posted by stupid people or by people with the intent to mislead. Ofc for commercial gains or some form of psycho issues.
Time to play squish the dogmatic illusions of reality.
Let's break this down into three facets. In the world of gambling we have the bet selection process, the mathematical expectations that are indisputable, and the results, either wished for or actual.
Bet Selections:
You can guess or you can predict through physics. I will rule out psychic ability. You make calculations for dealer signature, wheel bias, or visual ballistics. In either case you make a consistent selection based on either a fact or by assumption. Let's just stipulate that this is a constant effort. The question that needs to be answered honestly is does it always work all the time, or does it work at times real good, or average, or very bad at times. I would love to hear the simple consensus on that.
Is it knowable that you have good sessions and bad sessions using physics based bet selection?
Now to guessing. If you have a consistent guessing technique then I can confirm that you will get good winning session, flat going nowhere sessions, and disastrous losing sessions.
The Math
Now for the interesting part. Can you have a winning session even though you experience the average expected losses during that session? For an example you play a 100 spin session. You win just 47 of the hundred and lose 53 of them. Is it possible to win flat betting?
You control the bet amounts. The casino nor the probability police hold a gun to your head. It's up to you to decide what to bet on and how much. That's good too. If it is true that in physics play as well as guessing you can know when you are in a bad stretch of the session then you can control that session. Now the action you take will be in not knowing when the bad will end in the future, but you should know it when you see it. You will still lose the expected amount and win the expected amount in the long run.
So the question is, do you have to pay the same full price for losing streaks? Do you? Is there a law that says you must fully fund losing streaks? It comes down to being able to see the differences between the three possible phases as the current conditions as they occur. Can you do that? You can see when the physics is working better or worse. You can see when the guesses are working better or worse. There is no magical elf causing these conditions. It;s just pure randomness. There is no law of averages that sabotages your play. The space between your ears does a fine job of that without any help.
Interesting topic
If we look at it from Steve’s perspective which is the logical math probability angle
Yes roulette is random! It is independent!
I AGREE 100%
Quote from: MoneyT101 on Sep 13, 10:57 AM 2019
Interesting topic
If we look at it from Steve’s perspective which is the logical math probability angle
Yes roulette is random! It is independent!
I AGREE 100%
Math does not change. Steve is right.
Quote from: gizmotron2 on Sep 13, 11:11 AM 2019
Math does not change. Steve is right.
I said perspective... you can be correct and I can be correct and we can have different views
0+9=9
1+8=9
2+7=9
3+6=9
4+5=9
You can choose which way you want to get 9 and we both can get there but we don’t have to agree on which way is better. But different ways require different angles to look at...
Math doesn’t change but the view and Angle used can change the way the information looks and provide something that wasn’t known before
Hope I cleared up what I meant...
Quote from: MoneyT101 on Sep 13, 12:17 PM 2019
Math doesn’t change but the view and Angle used can change the way the information looks and provide something that wasn’t known before
Well perhaps, I guess. Further, Steve is correct. Each spin is independent. Past spins have no effect on future spins. Unless the wheel is biased then the wheel is nothing more than a fair randomness generator.
past spins in some minds might be independent and have no ruling as everything is random...
past spins will cause dependence...
how you define that dependence in a catergory is what is being discussed here
so its either it doesn,t or it does...
i,m for not against
Quote from: 6th-sense on Sep 13, 02:50 PM 2019
so its either it doesn,t or it does...
Don't get me wrong here. Each spin is independent from each other but each spin can be part of a whole different thing entirely. There can be 10 reds in a row and they are something that is the culmination of independent trials. When you look at syncopation, symmetry, juxtaposition, rhythmic intervals, the pathology of patterns, and streaks as a condition of awareness then all that independence crap goes right out the door.
If Steve is correct as you said twice, then you are wrong.
You can't have it both ways.
Quote from: Kav on Sep 13, 08:35 PM 2019
If Steve is correct as you said twice, then you are wrong.
You can't have it both ways.
First off I am glad some experienced members participate to post their views. Thank you
Kav's post is very important and spot on correct. It is what it is.
I took steve's statement to represent the point of discussion, that is
Is roulette spins
independent, future spins have no connection or relation whatsoever with past spins ?
If you believe in that future spins is independent of past spins, then there can be no possibility to predict.
If you can somehow predict future spins in whatever manner then future spins is not independent rather dependent of past spins.
Like Kav wrote you can't have it both ways, they can't co-exist. That's fact. You have to get this right, if you're wrong correct yourself stop this error today. Start afresh with the correct facts.
Up to this stage of discussion it becomes clear that this important point of dependency must exist for any chance of prediction.
It must be known from here that we don't "create" this dependency with this and that. That's wrong thinking.
It already exist naturally in roulette spin outcomes or not.
If dependency exist, our job is to find it.
For the math boyz, the math clearly and indisputably show that roulette spins are independent and the outcomes unbias(somewhat), that means roulette spins are random.
If this is true then there is no case for prediction. Don't kid yourself.
This proposal to "find" this element of dependency is a fools errand. Stop showing your stupidity. Ok ignorance.
Before I continue, I must declare I make no reference to any system posted on this forum. I don't make any direct reference to any poster.
My intention is purely to discuss the subject matter. Lets be clear about this.
Feel free to write your thoughts but be prepared that challenges will come your way if you got it wrong. It's not personal, don't take it the wrong way.
Quote from: luckyfella on Sep 13, 09:34 PM 2019
First off I am glad some experienced members participate to post their views. Thank you
Kav's post is very important and spot on correct. It is what it is.
I took steve's statement to represent the point of discussion, that is
Is roulette spins independent, future spins have no connection or relation whatsoever with past spins ?
If you believe in that future spins is independent of past spins, then there can be no possibility to predict.
If you can somehow predict future spins in whatever manner then future spins is not independent rather dependent of past spins.
Like Kav wrote you can't have it both ways, they can't co-exist. That's fact. You have to get this right, if you're wrong correct yourself stop this error today. Start afresh with the correct facts.
You are 100% right and so is Kav. Only problem I have is that after stating the obvious you both make an assumption that is not right. You are both saying that it can't be both ways. That is right too. It is only one way. Prediction is never the correct way to use patterns, trends, or both. I don't suggest that it is somehow used. You don't need it. It takes eyes being opened how I do it. But the best part is that you are both right.
Just for the sake of conversation I wonder if anyone that doesn't already know it here can answer what is the trick to using trends, patterns, and domination to beat the casino. Just thought I would ask as this is a good conversation.
Quote from: luckyfella on Sep 13, 09:42 PM 2019
Up to this stage of discussion it becomes clear that this important point of dependency must exist for any chance of prediction.
It must be known from here that we don't "create" this dependency with this and that. That's wrong thinking.
It already exist naturally in roulette spin outcomes or not.
If dependency exist, our job is to find it.
In a few words, dependency does not exist. Don't waste your time looking for it.
Quote from: luckyfella on Sep 13, 09:49 PM 2019
For the math boyz, the math clearly and indisputably show that roulette spins are independent and the outcomes unbias(somewhat), that means roulette spins are random.
If this is true then there is no case for prediction. Don't kid yourself.
This proposal to "find" this element of dependency is a fools errand. Stop showing your stupidity. Ok ignorance.
I agree 100% and sometimes we must be stupid before we get smarter. I can't imagine a way for dependency to exist.
Lets continue.
We are caught in a tricky situation.
The math say independent and unbias.
If that's the case why are you searching for dependency ?
Have you gone mad ?
Or simply stupid ?
Or ignorant ?
But what if there exist dependency ???
Aren't we not stupid that we don't search for it ?
Hello, did you read or do you have comprehension difficulty that roulette outcomes are independent and unbias ?
Isn't it plain stupid to search for something that don't exist ?
That's the kind of conversation that lock horns on every forum. People on both sides bickering forever and ever come the next thousand years and beyond.
Quote from: luckyfella on Sep 13, 10:03 PM 2019
That's the kind of conversation that lock horns on every forum. People on both sides bickering forever and ever come the next thousand years and beyond.
You are so right. That is why I decided to end it and wreck everything. I mean wreck it by telling a small few how to beat a casino and make the mathBoyz idiots all at the same time. You learn it, you keep it to yourselves a little, and you exploit it. In the process of teaching it and sharing it I faced these same locked horn types. But then people start to listen a little. Then they get to the meat and potatoes of it. Then the trolls swarm at or near the end.
You do know where it is don't you?
I hope readers see the nature of the problem with this subject about independent spins.
The are people who know via math that spins are independent, so no effort spent in searching for something that don't exist.
There are people who declare that spins are independent at the same time they are deeply involve in system strategies which is premised on that spins are dependent - opposite of their declaration.
There is this huge group who ofc believe in the predictability of spins, therefore by extension believe that that spins are not independent.
There is still a larger group whose believe is guided by the majority so they believe in not independent.
There is the extreme end who cannot believe no matter what that spins are independent. Roulette is their hope and this hope must not die.
Ofc we all know what the non-gamblers believe.
So, the nature of independent spins must require you to challenge this independent status.
You have to understand this.
The difficult part is the way the problem is set up.
Spins are independent, so what is your proof or at least a conceptual basis why you would even think that spins are independent ?
The answer is,
Sorry sir, I can't offer any proof right now. You know I don't have the proof. So why mock me by asking for proof ?
I have a personal calling so I follow my gut. Meanwhile stfu.
Now, leave me in peace that I willingly spend some time of my life to search for dependency of spins. Is that a crime ? Call me a fool, stupid if you must. I already know that but I still want to go search for it - fools gold.
For starters, you have to dare to dream.
Dream alone counts for nothing.
Commitment and hard work follows.
You know the drill.
You have to be brave to put up your hand to identify yourself, say
"I am the idiot, yes ME, who believe such a ridiculous thing that roulette spins are not independent. I am stupidly committed to put in the work to find this dependency. So stupid shall I be."
This is not a motivational post.
It is what it is. Reality.
This topic seems to be dependency on past spins in order to predict future spins. I don't see the connection to asking if roulette spins are random. But that is off topic at this point.
Rather than going on and on ad nauseam. Let's put some light out there.
The search is not for prediction. The search is for mastering coincidence. These are things that have no connection to anything.
Ofc, the clever ones knows the fact that roulette spins are independent.
They have their right to throw the math fact at you. And to challenge your stupidity. Make no mistake, they are right.
It's up to you to prove they are not exactly right.
Remember, prove it to yourself.
Don't be stupid. Dont be delusional.
Don't live another mans live,
You live yours, and
If you believe in the commitment to search for something that theoretically do not exist, contradict current knowledge of known and proven facts.
Don't ever back down.
Their views do not matter, counts for nothing.
You already knew that.
You are looking beyond the boundaries of current knowledge and facts.
That's your adventure.
Live it, go do it.
Most important,
Be prepared to fail, most likely you will fail.
***It's important I write it in it's full descriptive form for readers to understand the exact and complete form and nature of the matter at hand.
Roulette doesn't give a damn about past spins.
Repeaters, singles, non hits, trends, etc are just in your heads.
Also VB is not useful because nowadays roulette wheels are very modern and there is no way to know which sector the ball will hit.
Computers are prohibited in casinos and do not guarantee that you will make a profit.
Anyway, if you want to make money, playing roulette is the least suitable for that. Period.
Quote from: Andre Chass on Sep 13, 10:51 PM 2019
Repeaters, singles, non hits, trends, etc are just in your heads.
You are right. Trends don't exist because of a force to be discovered. They are a figment of your imagination because they don't have a connection to each other because of independence. But they do have form in that you can see them in a properly constructed chart. They are meaningless form. The point of this is to ask if you can use them. Is there a way to use meaningless forms? I decided to get past the fact they are meaningless and learned how to use them. They only exist because of coincidence.
In your brave motivated quest it is important to count the cost.
Everything you want, desire there is a cost you pay to get it.
Your time, your work, your sacrifices, your life.
Your quest becomes your life.
It consumes you.
You estimate probably 2-5years of hard work will get you there.
You are wrong.
2-5years most likely will not get you there.
5-10years will not get you there.
Not your entire lifetime.
Why ?
Because you challenge the current knowledge and facts.
You are most likely to end up a failed madman or hopelessly addicted gambler.
How far are you willing to commit ?
For something that you know is plain stupid that's bound to fail. Suicide mission.
Invert that argument premise,
Do you think if your commitment is at hobbyist level or part-time basis is good enough ?
What is good enough ?
How do we define this commitment that's required to give us a chance to succeed ?
You have to count the cost.
*** I have written a lot of aspects. Pls feel free to drop your comments whatever it may be. Lets hear from you.
May I gently remind that we respect everyones views and opinion. Thank you
I have a person here trained in three to four weeks. He is obliterating the math and the house advantage. Someone here led him to me. I'm not real sure who is whom in all this. One month to confirmed expert is fantastic. I'm calling him an expert because he is doing better than me. I'm lazy and know that you can use little bursts of variance to get you back to recovery. It's not a good idea to play lazy. I don't think he does. I expect everyone I train to do very well. Math no longer has a chance. You don't need it. You can't use math to beat the casino. And best of all math can't prevent you from massacring the casinos.
That is the world I know exists and I have brought it to this forum for free. You don't need to take years and failure. I only came back here because someone led me back here. Learn it, ignore it, I don't care. Those that want this will make the effort if for no other reason than curiosity.
@ luckyfella, is there a point you're trying to make? If so, I can't see it. How about helping me out here? ;D
Quote from: Joe on Sep 14, 05:30 AM 2019
@ luckyfella, is there a point you're trying to make? If so, I can't see it. How about helping me out here? ;D
First I admit I erred twice in my earlier post both here and on the other thread about dependency and bias. They don't refer to the same thing.
Since I have now made the correction I move forward on this topic.
I took it slow and easy to make sure that the facts are all correct. No errors.
I'm sure you are aware of errors of facts posted here. But to move forward I cannot dwell on them.
Quote from: Joe on Sep 14, 05:30 AM 2019
@ luckyfella, is there a point you're trying to make? If so, I can't see it. How about helping me out here? ;D
From hereon, I expect readers to get their math correct thats the assumption. The discussion cannot backtrack to the basics that are wrong.
By now, my earlier posts in some way have pointed at dependency as the doorway to possible prediction.
Just to be clear bias spins is another doorway to prediction. That's more a AP strategy based on the physical attributes of cause and effect that's not the angle of discussion.
Or perhaps bias viewed from an oblique angle it's relevant.
I must make it clear, I am not santa claus who come here to give you that magic solution. No, get your expectations right.
Correct me if I am wrong there are 4 popular and huge threads that suggest dependency of spins.
1. Dyslexic pigeonhole principle,
2. RRBB derived stream,
3. Vaddi pairs,
4. TurboGenius repeaters
If I miss others out I apologise, feel free to add on the list below.
None of the OP posted details of their method.
All of them suggest dependency but none of them pointed at specific dependency that we can test to confirm if it's true and then exploit it.
Do we really expect they will post in public forum this evidence of spin dependency ?
If you ask, you are stupid or you mock with ulterior purpose to degrade their suggestion. Nobody is stupid here, we are all adults.
TurboGenius posted Parx and R-sim results.
And, YES those results should not be taken as substantiating evidence. The smart experienced forum veterans got it correct. Well done. :thumbsup:
Quote from: Joe on Sep 14, 05:30 AM 2019
@ luckyfella, is there a point you're trying to make? If so, I can't see it. How about helping me out here? ;D
I have to ask you,
Do you want help ?
Or,
Are you looking to invalidate proposals of dependency ?
Ofc we must test to validate such proposals. We are not stupid either.
But before all that, can we examine your(anyone) attitude first ?
Everyone understand and do appreciate the scepticism but this same thing is viewed as negative that discourages any further discourse. OP just disappear from forums.
Is that a validation that he is wrong ?
Quote from: Joe on Sep 14, 05:30 AM 2019
@ luckyfella, is there a point you're trying to make? If so, I can't see it. How about helping me out here? ;D
Here is the deal.
If you expect someone post on forums the evidence of dependency of spin outcomes, you know it won't happen.
Let me state it clearly, you are asking to be handed the holy grail of this roulette game if it even exist.
Dependency is more than just about roulette, it's about the math behind random.
Do you expect someone post on such roulette forum this huge math finding ?
Can we all start to act like adults at least that we can have meaningful discussion pls ?
This is truly a thread for the ages. The title fooled me. I interjected a kind of off topic to it in that I had no idea that this was the search for a connection to prediction where math must be right.
I'm on a different quest. So I will get off this thread in order to pursue it here at this forum, as somewhere appropriate. I'm currently destroying all known math that applies to gambling and the so called house advantage. Only in that revelation will you find a possible connection to this thread with respect that the math must be validated during a search for a connection thru dependency.
Good luck with that.
luckyfella, ok, that's fine, and I'm not expecting anyone to post a holy grail. But I would like to understand at least what you understand by dependence in the context of roulette, and importantly, how you would test for it. That's very important because you might believe there is dependence but if it doesn't show up in the stats, then you don't have it.
So first, can you explain what you mean by dependence, and second, how are you testing for it? (I know several ways, but I'm interested in your way).
If you want to post riddles and hints that's fine too, some people like to play that game.
Again, as reminder I only try facilitate meaningful discussion.
Lets continue.
Nobody will ever post evidence or proof of dependency. Keep asking and keep waiting. Enjoy yourself.
Now without proof to go on, for those whose gut tells them that there might exist this dependency whose existence is yet to be discovered.
Program your mindset that you ASSUME that it's there, go find it.
If you think that's a stupid assumption, good for you the smarter and wiser ones. Be on your way.
Quote from: Joe on Sep 14, 08:05 AM 2019
If you want to post riddles and hints that's fine too, some people like to play that game.
Joe, I have no time to play games. Zero, nada, zilch.
If you want me to stop, I stop here. No problem. End of my posting.
It's very important to me that you know I don't play games.
That's luckyfella, the real no nonsense straight talking forum member. No more.Enjoy your forum. Cheers
Quote from: luckyfella on Sep 14, 07:56 AM 2019
Do you expect someone post on such roulette forum this huge math finding ?
I have known that this would happen someday.
I don't want to blow the brain cells required to write the math for this. So I decided to overwhelm the world with a kind of human nature experiment instead. Many times the math the formula or discovery comes first and then it has applications in life that validate it. I have no desire to get the attention of the mathematics world by showing them the formula first. That's too much unrewarding work.
So I have decided to hand the world the practical application of a yet unknown math that can explain it. The validation comes first. It also makes a few people very happy for the time being. So I'm deliberately doing the unexpected. Perhaps you can explain this as foolishness or delusional. But what if it is objective truth? There is also that possibility. All I ask is that people give it 2 weeks to a month trying it before declaring what it is. How could they possibly know without checking it out.
We all know that the absolutist faction of the probability world will find this a threat to all they they preach. Their entire basis and foundation for reason is about to crumble. So I expect fireworks.
Quote from: luckyfella on Sep 14, 08:06 AM 2019Nobody will ever post evidence or proof of dependency. Keep asking and keep waiting. Enjoy yourself.
Of course not, because if it exists it would be tantamount to posting the HG.
I'm not asking for any such thing, I'm just asking for 1) your definition of dependence, and 2) How you would test for it. Please include as much detail as possible. BTW, this applies also to Gizmo since he is also claiming he has the grail. :D
Quote from: gizmotron2 on Sep 14, 08:02 AM 2019
I'm currently destroying all known math that applies to gambling and the so called house advantage. Only in that revelation will you find a possible connection to this thread with respect that the math must be validated during a search for a connection thru dependency.
Good luck with that.
Your quest is a difficult one.
You must have a reason for your quest. I don't have any reason. So
I wish you the very best.
Quote from: Joe on Sep 14, 08:18 AM 2019
Of course not, because if it exists it would be tantamount to posting the HG.
I'm not asking for any such thing, I'm just asking for 1) your definition of dependence, and 2) How you would test for it. Please include as much detail as possible. BTW, this applies also to Gizmo since he is also claiming he has the grail. :D
Good, a real question that deserves the respect of a real answer. I have already posted that HG in the full wide open where I have openly answered all questions. It's found in the Roulette section under the title "Reading Randomness."
This is that forum: gamblingforums dot com
I did this back on July 20th. It's up and running and people are learning it. But a few of those people trying are actually here at this forum. I'm just looking for validation here. The explanation is already provided. People here like to actually say something with substance. There it is like a wild west shoot-out.
Quote from: Joe on Sep 14, 08:18 AM 2019
Of course not, because if it exists it would be tantamount to posting the HG.
Thanks for posting this.
We are now clear and on the same page. :thumbsup:
Quote from: gizmotron2 on Sep 14, 08:28 AM 2019
Good, a real question that deserves the respect of a real answer. I have already posted that HG in the full wide open where I have openly answered all questions. It's found in the Roulette section under the title "Reading Randomness."
This is that forum: gamblingforums dot com
I did this back on July 20th. It's up and running and people are learning it. But a few of those people trying are actually here at this forum. I'm just looking for validation here. The explanation is already provided. People here like to actually say something with substance. There it is like a wild west shoot-out.
GizM, I am only aware of your thread today. I stopped reading roulette forums for sometime now. Yes, I will take a look. And thank you.
Quote from: gizmotron2 on Sep 14, 08:15 AM 2019So I have decided to hand the world the practical application of a yet unknown math that can explain it. The validation comes first.
Gizmo, no need to try to explain the maths of why it works, but I'd like to see the math
that it works. I'm a numbers guy; give me some real data. You said your system is destroying the HE, so be specific - how many bets have you made? how many numbers do you bet? how many wins have you had? less waffle, more data please.
Quote from: luckyfella on Sep 14, 08:20 AM 2019
Your quest is a difficult one.
You must have a reason for your quest. I don't have any reason. So
I wish you the very best.
Thanks,
It actually started from another person suggesting that a real Holy Grail could be posted in the full wide open and that it would not actually do any damage. I realized that this was the truth. So I posted my findings after 14 years researching the subject and refining and simplifying it. That is what is there now. No more hints here-or-there crud. I take you on the journey of learning it.
What a novelty. Someone is putting everyone to the test by doing the unthinkable. This is really fun while it lasts. I don't have to answer with cryptic clues. I don't need to take any money and then deliver under any pressure to deliver. It's just pure thought provoking experience.
There's this T-shirt my sister got me that says, "I can tell you, but I can't understand it for you."
Quote from: Joe on Sep 14, 08:32 AM 2019
Gizmo, no need to try to explain the maths of why it works, but I'd like to see the math that it works. I'm a numbers guy; give me some real data. You said your system is destroying the HE, so be specific - how many bets have you made? how many numbers do you bet? how many wins have you had? less waffle, more data please.
You are going to love this answer. My numbers are irrelevant for the time being. There are people here that are putting up numbers that even astound me. They have examples published there that prove that they understand it.
If you want to be that Einstein that floats this across the math world with a paper then learn it. If you have the math skills to explain it then you can be the first. It looks like it takes about two weeks to get the basics.
This is funny. The method is there but the real discussion is here. Isn't the internet fun?
My numbers are a 2 to 1 ratio where 1 to 1 is a rounded expectation under binomial distribution standards. That obliterates all known math. Some here are getting closer to 3 to 1. I suspect that they are far more serious than I am. This is a method that rewards fine scrutiny. The implications to the investment world alone will be staggering. All known research that depends on a part of it being validated thru statistical inference will all come under a new kind of review.
You should go for it. Do you you have a fine German last name?
Joe gets the Nobel Prize.
Quote from: Kav on Sep 13, 02:24 AM 2019
Steve,
I believe Blueprint refers to the known "argument" that to become a 3-times repeater a number has first to be a 2-times repeater etc.
I would agree with you on this one. It is stating the obvious and does not offer a clue on how to use this FACT to our advantage.
Just to be clear, the exact issue is that bolded and underlined.
Quote from: luckyfella on Sep 14, 08:32 AM 2019
GizM, I am only aware of your thread today. I stopped reading roulette forums for sometime now. Yes, I will take a look. And thank you.
It's the wild west there. I have a gun too. So I shoot my mouth off freely. Some of those trolls are actually one person having conversations with themselves under different names. The worst offender is the new owner of betSelection dot cc
Quote from: gizmotron2 on Sep 14, 08:50 AM 2019My numbers are a 2 to 1 ratio where 1 to 1 is a rounded expectation under binomial distribution standards. That obliterates all known math. Some here are getting closer to 3 to 1.
So that's 2:1 win ratio on an even chance game? Flat bets?
Ok I'm checking out your thread on the other forum. I think your videos are the best way to learn the strategy. BTW, did anyone ever tell you that you sound like Woody Harrelson? :D
Quote from: Joe on Sep 14, 09:11 AM 2019
So that's 2:1 win ratio on an even chance game? Flat bets?
Ok I'm checking out your thread on the other forum. I think your videos are the best way to learn the strategy. BTW, did anyone ever tell you that you sound like Woody Harrelson? :D
Funny that. Do you mean like smoking something?
Quote from: Joe on Sep 14, 09:11 AM 2019
So that's 2:1 win ratio on an even chance game? Flat bets?
Let me explain that. I stop at a win point that is well inside very common variance. I got the idea from this video that somebody posted there a few years ago.
This is information not found there. I adapted this thinking to Roulette and came up with the stop points out of practicality. But I got the idea from the stock market traders to begin with. I just applied reading randomness skills to it and BAMB!
link:s://:.youtube.com/watch?v=bRCtBRsLPmk
Quote from: luckyfella on Sep 14, 09:03 AM 2019
Just to be clear, the exact issue is that bolded and underlined.
Read post #1 of this thread. It's right there together with jerome comments.
link:s://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=20115.0
It took me more than 1year of research to understand fully the crap that TurboG wrote.
Wtf Turbo to write math of dependency like that. Damn you. :xd:
And ofc thanks a lot.
I gave you guys a bone.
One tip from me, don't go down the same path. They don't work.
The rest is up to you.
Repeaters player.
Luckyfella
Quote from: luckyfella on Sep 14, 11:05 AM 2019
It took me more than 1year of research to understand fully the crap that TurboG wrote.
That's funny to me. I spent 6 months on his hot number stuff and wrote software that I thought confirmed it. There was one line of code out of place that screwed the results. After I discovered that flaw it failed.
This list is from 76 spins, 2 cycles of 38. It shows each number and how many times it hit in the two cycles.
8 0,31 0,34 0,16 1,18 1,4 2,11 2,12 2,15 2,17 2,25 2,33 2,36 2,6 3,9 3,1
4 3,19 3,22 3,23 3,27 3,28 3,29 3,32 3,37 3,38 3,1 4,2 4,3 4,7 4,13 4,
20 4,30 4,35 4,10 5,21 5,5 6,24 6,26 6, -- So #8 hit zero times and #26 hit six times.
Did some testings (not exactly the same, but similar)
works pretty well O0
Quote from: ignatus on Sep 14, 04:00 PM 2019works pretty well
I don't think something works well if it breaks even or loses for 20-30,000 spins :)
At least it's a long term test that shows the reality and not a lucky sequence of 200 spins.
Yesterday I had an idea that I couldn't code, so I started doing a spin by spin test in excel. It's all flat bet, covering 9 numbers. I thought this is it.
Today I thought what the hell, I'm gonna do a real money test. It didn't take long for the casino to find the spins that make me lose. :-\
Deep down I knew it couldn't work. Somebody said it many years ago. Is there a permutation that can make my system lose? Then I can be sure that roulette will find it.
Quote from: ati on Sep 14, 07:54 PM 2019
I don't think something works well if it breaks even or loses for 20-30,000 spins :)
At least it's a long term test that shows the reality and not a lucky sequence of 200 spins.
Yesterday I had an idea that I couldn't code, so I started doing a spin by spin test in excel. It's all flat bet, covering 9 numbers. I thought this is it.
Today I thought what the hell, I'm gonna do a real money test. It didn't take long for the casino to find the spins that make me lose. :-\
Deep down I knew it couldn't work. Somebody said it many years ago. Is there a permutation that can make my system lose? Then I can be sure that roulette will find it.
Many people are just coming up with an idea and then testing it.
But where’s the logic??
Look at your template and based on your template what happens do a step by step on what you’re seeing. And take logical steps.
How can you beat those bad permutations? Or how can you play in a way in which you don’t lose as much?
I publish this now, (yes, im a fool) but then it´s not my system, the original idea was Gizmotron, so credits to Him....but then, i don´t know if it´s a "good system" because i´ve seen many losing sessions also, winrate is not higher than 70%... also, you would need a pretty large BR about 1500-2000u played with 1u bets.
I play this with a 107 spin cycle, with the positive progression 1,3,5,8 STOP (An alternative positive progressionline is 1,3,5 STOP)
How i´ve coded it. This system looks for how many times a single Hotnumber (number hit 2 times within a 20 spin cycle) will hit again within a 107 spin cycle.
That seems to work, as i said "sometimes", when it wins, usually it wins big, ...Hit and Run, as always, could work may be
TEST 1-5 Livespins
RX.code
system "HotCycle"
// © ignatus 2019 ©
method "main"
begin
while starting a new session
begin
Set List[1,3,5,8]
to Record "progression" Data
end
put 0 to Record "Highest Bankroll" Data
while on each spin
begin
Track last Number for 20 spins to Record "last" layout
IF flag "bet" true each
begin
Track last Number for 110 spins to Record "last1" layout
IF Record "last1" layout index >= 107 each
begin
set flag "bet" false
clear Record "last1" Layout
put 1 on Record "progression" Data Index
clear Record "bet" layout
end
end
IF any inside bet lost each
begin
// add 1 on Record "progression" Data Index
end
If any inside bet won each
begin
add 1 on Record "progression" Data Index
{ clear Record "bet" layout
clear Record "bet1" layout
Reset all flags false
add 1 on Record "progression" Data Index
if Bankroll >= Record "Highest Bankroll" Data
begin
clear Record "Highest Bankroll" Data
put 100% Bankroll to Record "Highest Bankroll" Data
put 1 on Record "progression" Data Index
end
}
end
IF Record "last" layout is found within Record "secondlast" layout each
begin
if flag "bet" false each
begin
set flag "bet" true
put 1 on Record "progression" Data Index
clear Record "last1" Layout
copy Record "last" layout to Record "bet" layout
Put 100% of Record "progression" data to Record "Bet" Layout list
end
end
If flag "bet" true each
begin
Put 100% of Record "progression" data to Record "Bet" Layout list
end
{ if total spin count >= 300 each
begin
stop session
end
}
if total bankroll <= -2000 each
begin
stop session
end
if total bankroll >= 300 each
begin
//stop session
end
set flag "clear" false
If Record "progression" Data Index >
Record "progression" Data Count each
Begin
set flag "bet" false
clear Record "bet" layout
Put 1 on Record "progression" Data Index
End
Track last Number for 20 spins to Record "secondlast" layout
end
END
Quote from: ignatus on Sep 14, 09:01 PM 2019
I publish this now, (yes, im a fool) but then it´s not my system, the original idea was Gizmotron, so credits to Him....but then, i don´t know if it´s a "good system" because i´ve seen many losing sessions also, winrate is not higher than 70%... also, you would need a pretty large BR about 1500-2000u played with 1u bets.
I'm not sure what system you are referring to? There is no way that you programmed reading randomness. Perhaps it was on my adventure into Turbo's law of thirds distributions?
What is it?
Interesting. This is the first time I've looked at this scripting language. It's session oriented for simulating Roulette.
It's not reading randomness. It's some kind of progression with stop points.
Quote from: gizmotron2 on Sep 15, 08:46 AM 2019What is it?
It´s a system based on your idea, "how many times a hotnumber repeats within a 72 spin cycle", now i use a 107 spin cycle...for a hotnumber.
positive progression 1,3,5,8 STOP (An alternative positive progressionline is 1,3,5 STOP)
How i´ve coded it. This system looks for how many times a single Hotnumber (number hit 2 times within a 20 spin cycle) will hit again within a 107 spin cycle.
Interesting, I morphed it from Turbo.