Step In To My Game

[Steve]

It's simple. If you're winning a fortune (millions), and have been doing it for years, your system probably works. Can any people claiming to have a "winning method" honestly say this is you? Can you system players touting repeaters and similar junk honestly claim this? No. But you crap on about how useless principles hold the secret to winning, and how real professionals dont know better.

If you aren't actually out there winning a fortune, your approach probably doesn't work.

No, a few wins here and there doesn't mean your system "works". If you really think it does, you need to understand statistical relevance. You need to understand out of 10 people using the same bad system, maybe 1 might win for a year from luck, thinking they're masters.

In any event, if you're winning, go out of do it.

If your system eventually loses, you'll eventually find out and learn a lesson. I've lost count of the amount of players who profess to have the HG, win for a while, lose, then see how uneducated and brainless they were. Even I've been there before. Most experienced players have. So you begin thinking you have it figured out - only to eventually learn you've been deluded, and making random bets.

If you haven't yet learned the basics, you will, if you continue. Then maybe you'll understand what better educated and more experienced players say.

[6th-sense]

I think your judging something you are not comprehending

If you comprehend what Mel is actually saying Steve show us a clear example

He’s not talking repeaters

He is just giving you a different approach to look at and not understanding that approach and how to use it to your advantage seems frustrating to you so you give the same wide brush approach as usual

Odds are not being disputed

[Still]

Someday, I may post on this forum a very poor performing non-viable system that has a positive edge.

To prove to Steve and naysayers that this natural occuring positive edge in roulette spins do exist.

However, this system will reveal very little of the statitstical math that's required for the complete solution to this roulette puzzle.

Lets see if I am in the mood to do that.

I've recommended this approach before. To my knowledge, no one claiming to have an edge has ever revealed a watered down version that could prove the concept.  Excuses such as it would reveal the concept are floated.  Good on you if you can do this. You could call people stupid all day long without much push back. It should almost be a prerequisite to show at least a .5% edge before styling oneself a teacher.

[Steve]

He is just giving you a different approach to look at and not understanding that approach and how to use it to your advantage seems frustrating to you so you give the same wide brush approach as usual

You misunderstand. What's frustrating me is how blind people can be.

Odds are not being disputed

Right. So if the method doesn't change the odds, the bet accuracy is random. Right? So what makes it different to random bets?

I'll give you a new method. Stand on your head while guessing the next number. It's a new method. The odds don't change. Bet accuracy is still random. But it's a new method...... Can you see how stupid that sounds?

And saying my frustration is not understanding how to use it to my advantage is just as boneheaded. You already said the odds don't change. So how can it be used to anyone's advantage?

Some of you have such poor understanding you don't even know when you've contradicted yourself. What's worse is even when it is spelled out to you, you still don't get it, then think maybe others get annoyed because perhaps they don't know the secret, which you don;t even know yourself, although there's no secret to what you've just said - it's just you've got no idea what you're saying.

To prove to Steve and naysayers that this natural occuring positive edge in roulette spins do exist. However, this system will reveal very little of the statitstical math that's required for the complete solution to this roulette puzzle. Lets see if I am in the mood to do that.

You'll be in the mood, like an elderly wife with a headache. First for anyone to take your claims seriously, you should at least be right about the basics.

[Joe]

I shared a system with them.  Told them exactly how to play it out.  None have even attempted to try it.

Where is this system?

Guys, I'm willing to test any system with an open mind, even though I'm skeptical about all systems, and for good reason.
I use systems myself and am well in the black after several years of playing, but I don't kid myself it's because I've found any holy grail.

I know it's not a holy grail because I know how to do proper statistical tests, and they show that none of my methods gives any statistical advantage. I just wish others would learn how to do the same, then we wouldn't get so many overblown claims on forums from people who are quite frankly clueless.

[Still]

-I didn’t claim to beat house edge

Wait. But this is the whole point. Your method should give you an edge over the house, despite their initial advantage.

We can look at things differently all day, but at the end of the day if you don't have an edge over their edge, why are you styling yourself a teacher?

[luckyfella]

I've recommended this approach before. To my knowledge, no one claiming to have an edge has ever revealed a watered down version that could prove the concept.  Excuses such as it would reveal the concept are floated.  Good on you if you can do this. You could call people stupid all day long without much push back. It should almost be a prerequisite to show at least a .5% edge before styling oneself a teacher.

Thanks still for your post.

I have shared the actual statistical math with some people and among them are experienced roulette players and competent coders.

I have also shared mechanical system to demonstrate the idea behind the concept design.

This actual mechanical system has also been coded whose result serve to demonstrate the basis of the concept in action.

Experienced members have adapted the math concept into their own systems to generate their systems that give positive edge.

Armed with this knowledge experienced members have now realised the reason behind the failure of all systems. Their knowledge and understanding of the statistical math have grown.

I don't need further validation from this forum.

About watered down version, for it to work it must contain some elements of  this statistical math, that's common sense.

For me to figure out how to design a mechanical system that conceal this math is a special project with specific objectives. To a simpleton it may sound easy, but no the task is not easy.

Bottomline, I learnt from them. They learnt from me. All of us has grown in our knowledge and understanding of the math of roulette spins.

[luckyfella]

We can't all be fools.
We can't all be ignorant.
We can't all be uneducated.
We can't all make mistakes.
There are competent coders, imo the best there is.
We can't all be marketers.
We can't all be scammers.
We can't all be dishonest cheaters and liars.
We are all adults, some in our advance years.

[Herby]

I'm willing to test any system with an open mind, even though I'm skeptical about all systems, and for good reason.
I use systems myself and am well in the black after several years of playing, but I don't kid myself it's because I've found any holy grail.

If you use systems and you are in the black so its possible. If you can't smell kind of a system it here  you are not open minded.

Nobody talked about grail.
Why don't you fight the scammers which sell for thousends of whatever currency ?

MoneyT gives at least for me interesting ideas without asking for money.
I understand your pressing for information you yourself are not willing to give. Are you ?

Show us one of your systems which can stay in black for greater than 3 sigma !
You don't.

[6th-sense]

Some of you have such poor understanding you don't even know when you've contradicted yourself. What's worse is even when it is spelled out to you, you still don't get it, then think maybe others get annoyed because perhaps they don't know the secret, which you don;t even know yourself, although there's no secret to what you've just said - it's just you've got no idea what you're saying.

i know excactly what i,m saying..and have a very good understanding..and excactly what is being said by Mel and luckyfella

[Joe]

Herby, yes it's possible to make a profit using systems, at least in the short term. And 'short term' could be your lifetime depending on how much you play. But that's ultimately down to luck. I know this because I've done the tests and none of my strategies is significant at even the 5% level, let alone 3 stdev.  I've admitted that.

Yes, MoneyT and Lucky are talking about grails; that's what they're claiming they have : systems with real positive edges. I suggest you read this thread again if you disagree that's what they're claiming.

[Joe]

Why don't you fight the scammers which sell for thousends of whatever currency ?

Scammers rely on the ignorance and gullibility of buyers. Ignorance which is perpetuated by forum members whose claims aren't challenged. The best way to stop scammers is to educate people.

[luckyfella]

Scammers rely on the ignorance and gullibility of buyers. Ignorance which is perpetuated by forum members whose claims aren't challenged. The best way to stop scammers is to educate people.

You have to show proof of your credibility as well.

Who appointed you as the official forum scam police ?

If you believe that the spins are random then what is your purpose with your presence in a the system roulette board that you know for sure fails ?

There were certain accusations leveled at you by certain members.

Give us a clear undisputed answer with supporting evidence to refute those accusations.

[luckyfella]

Herby, yes it's possible to make a profit using systems, at least in the short term. And 'short term' could be your lifetime depending on how much you play. But that's ultimately down to luck. I know this because I've done the tests and none of my strategies is significant at even the 5% level, let alone 3 stdev.  I've admitted that.

Are you prepared to post your short term winning systems on this forum ?

[luckyfella]

Anyway, I have posted everything possible in my brief return.

My purpose is fulfilled.

Cheers
Signing out