Hi guys,
I don't post often here and probably I won't be able to reply to any replies. But I just want to attempt to give an answer/explanation to Steve's logical argument, posted on the Turbo topic. Steve's main point is this:
QuoteTHE PROBLEM IS YOU CANNOT POSSIBLY BEAT ROULETTE WITHOUT CHANGING THE ODDS. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE.
I don't want to be argumentative and I already know that none will change the mind of anyone. And like I said above I probably won't be here to defend my position. I just want to present the opposite way of thinking and you are free to do what you want with it: ridicule it, dismiss it or think about it. I also want to make clear that I speak only for myself. I don't represent Turbo or any other system player. Their opinions may differ from mine.
It is not only Steve who believes this. Many players, experts (in or without quotes) and the majority of mathematicians would agree with this claim. They say: "Since the payout isn't fair, if you can't change the odds in your favour, you can't possibly win"
I disagree. Two points:
1. Most people who claim this, have not studied roulette strategies enough. It's natural, why would you invest time in something you believe it's ineffective. Therefore they get the idea that a roulette strategy is a concept that can work on autopilot. It is not. It's work. It's a fight. And you can not avoid losses. But still, by clever choice of bets and wise and disciplined money management, you can be in profit overall. When someone asks a question about "changing the odds" or "negating the house edge" or things like these, it's obvious to me that he expects a method that will produce wins on autopilot by flat betting. I do not flat bet and there is no way to win blindfolded. There is no such method I know of.
2. What is this fixation with the odds? When someone finds it strange to see only 1 black in 10 spins, because the odds are 50%-50%, we underestimate him and call him a victim of gambler's fallacy. Now suddenly the odds are the be all and end all of roulette. The odds are theoretical odds. In practice they are being refuted and disproved each and every spin. Each number has 1/37 odds or appearing, yet some numbers will go missing and other will repeat themselves shamelessly. I'm not arguing the basics of roulette here. What I'm saying is two things:
- You don't need to change the odds of a bet for the bet to be successful
- One must decide if odds are important or if believing in odds to materialize is gambler's fallacy. You can't have it both ways. If you believe with such conviction in odds then you believe that something is due.
Like I said, I just wanted to present my way of thinking. I don't want to dismiss any other opinion, I don't expect to change anyone's mind and I don't plan to reply, defending my approach. Everyone is free to think as he prefers.
“The odds are theoretical odds. In practice they are being refuted and disproved each and every spinâ€
Totally agree. But no one cares.
I am in agreement with what is written here. Beating odds every spin is not possible and it is a very constrained view to assume beating odds is the only way to win in roulette. Every spin is part of a larger set of spins.
Hey Kav, See below:
Quote from: Kav on Jan 18, 04:38 AM 2018Most people who claim this, have not studied roulette strategies enough
Quite the opposite. People who make the claims have done a lot of testing, and are aware of many other tests. The tests are generally far more extensive than what most system players do. More extensive means more trustworthy, and more indicative of reality.
In my case, one thing I've done is used automated software to check billions of spins for patterns (I published part of the software free so anyone can test, but RX can do the same too). All imaginable patterns. For example, Turbo claims hot numbers are more likely to spin again soon. This has been tested exhaustively by so many people. You could have a repeater like 32,32. Or 32 spinning 3 times in 10 spins. Or whatever other sequence with "hot numbers". The result is betting hot numbers is no different to betting cold or even random numbers.
Quote from: Kav on Jan 18, 04:38 AM 2018But still, by clever choice of bets and wise and disciplined money management, you can be in profit overall
Yes you can win by being careful, but this is still just luck.
You might increase your bets after winnings and get lucky with some big wins. You'd think that's playing smart... because there was a "winning streak". OR, you could lose on those big bets and be back to square one.
My point is money management, and being wise is actually just illusion. Because if the winning number is random, you don't know if your "wise choices" will cost or make you money.
Quote from: Kav on Jan 18, 04:38 AM 2018When someone asks a question about "changing the odds" or "negating the house edge" or things like these, it's obvious to me that he expects a method that will produce wins on autopilot by flat betting. I do not flat bet and there is no way to win blindfolded. There is no such method I know of.
It sounds like you're differentiating between a system that can win, to a system that changes the odds. Everyone knows any system can win (with luck). But a system that has a long term advantage is completely different.
Take for example a "wise choice". When the spin is completely unpredictable, how can it be a wise choice? If there was a repeater like 32,32, is it wise to bet 32 again? Or wise to not bet 32 again because it would be unlikely to spin again? But actually if you test enough spins, you'll know undoubtedly that either situation happens exactly as often as the other. So there is no "wise choice". It's just random.
Now compare a system that changes the odds, which might determine that #16 is most likely to spin next. So then of course you would bet #16.
Quote from: Kav on Jan 18, 04:38 AM 2018What is this fixation with the odds?
It's not specifically the ODDS. It is the combination of ODDS AND PAYOUT.
The problem is the PAYOUT is lower than the ODDS.
For example, consider a coin toss. The ODDS are 50/50 and payout 1:1. If you play for a while, you can expect to break even.
Now imagine every 10th win you have, you need to pay back that win like a tax. So no matter what you do, you are eventually going to lose. It doesn't matter what system you have, or how wise your choices are. You are still going to lose.
Roulette's house edge is a lot like this. The difference is you can change the ODDS, so that although you still have the annoying tax, you can win more than you lose.
Edge has nothing to do with money management or wise choices. It has to do with improving the odds so the unfair payout is overcome.
Quote from: Kav on Jan 18, 04:38 AM 2018When someone finds it strange to see only 1 black in 10 spins, because the odds are 50%-50%, we underestimate him and call him a victim of gambler's fallacy. Now suddenly the odds are the be all and end all of roulette. The odds are theoretical odds. In practice they are being refuted and disproved each and every spin.
If he thinks he can bet black is due, or if red is on a streak, it is gamblers fallacy. Because red and black are just as likely to spin next. The proof is tests over billions (and more) spins that prove after 1 black in 10 spins, the next spin being black or red will occur the same amount of times. So it isn't mere theoretical odds. It is reality. The only exception is if there is an underlying physical reason why one color may win over the other (like a bias).
I have an open mind. Maybe there are other reasons. But it has been tested exhaustively, and there is no evidence at all to support one color is more likely to spin over the other.
I'm a logical person. So when there is no evidence to support something, I'm skeptical. And when the evidence we do have clearly suggests and demonstrates something, it's only reasonable to come to the conclusion.
In this case, with 1 black in 10 spins. Besides bias and such physical conditions, I know of no reason why one color is more likely to spin over another. But what information I do have to make up my mind is extensive test results that show red/black are just as likely as each other to spin next. We cannot ignore extensive testing. It is not a matter of opinion. It is just what the tests show. It has nothing to do with what we want or hope for. Nothing to do with wisdom. It's plain do the tests and see.
Quote from: Kav on Jan 18, 04:38 AM 2018The odds are theoretical odds. In practice they are being refuted and disproved each and every spin
But they aren't being refuted. The tests show the odds are actually correct. Of course there is short term variance. For example, after 10 spins there might be 1 red, 10 blacks. There might be 4 blacks, 6 reds. Might be 5 blacks, 5 reds. But every combination of reds/blacks will happen the same amount of times. You cant bet for or against any combination because it's all just "random".
NOTE: Nothing is ever actually random. It's all just cause and effect. But when you cannot realistically predict things, they can be called "random".
Quote from: Kav on Jan 18, 04:38 AM 2018Each number has 1/37 odds or appearing, yet some numbers will go missing and other will repeat themselves shamelessly
This is just simple statistics and variance. You can never know which of those numbers they'll be. And you can never know even if this will happen.
Its like how Turbo says in 37 spins there will never be 37 unique numbers. Actually if you test enough spins, it will happen. And if you test enough spins, it clearly happens the same amount of times as any other combination of spins.
Quote from: Kav on Jan 18, 04:38 AM 2018You don't need to change the odds of a bet for the bet to be successful
No you don't. But then that would be success from luck, not from a real long term advantage.
Quote from: Kav on Jan 18, 04:38 AM 2018One must decide if odds are important or if believing in odds to materialize is gambler's fallacy. You can't have it both ways. If you believe with such conviction in odds then you believe that something is due.
The odds are real. Extensive testing makes this very clear. You are talking about variance (anything being possible).
Understanding odds is nothing like believing something is due. It's actually the opposite. It is understanding that nothing is due. It is understanding that after any combination of consecutive spins, that nothing is due, and any number spinning next is equally likely.
Where's the proof? Testing billions of spins. Again we cant just ignore what the history and extensive testing shows.
It seems like you're saying players can still be successful without worrying about odds. And yes that's true, but again that would be from luck - not wisdom or smart choices.
In the end, all professional play is ODDS VS PAYOUT. Its the same for any investment - risk vs return.
If you are "gambling" then the risks outweigh the returns. If you are an advantage player, then you are rigging the game to be in your favor, so the returns outweigh the risks.
I understand that responses about math, odds, payouts etc can seem arrogant. But really it's just math is not a matter of opinion. It is simply what is. And if you do extensive testing, the truth is clear.
Also keep in mind the entire gaming industry is built on odds vs payout. It is the foundation of gambling.
The experts are not wrong. It's why gamblers lose money while casinos make billions.
The occasional winning gambler does not mean they have beaten the casino. It just means some players win once in a while. I even won for around a year with a losing system, and thought I had it figured out. But beating 5000 or so spins with a losing system is not difficult.
There could be 10 people all using the same system for a year... and 6 may lose, 4 may win. The 6 losers are back to the drawing board. The 4 winners brag to their family and friends and are convinced their system works. But they fail to see the larger picture.
Quote from: Steve on Jan 18, 05:48 PM 2018
Hey Kav, See below:
Quite the opposite. People who make the claims have done a lot of testing, and are aware of many other tests. The tests are generally far more extensive than what most system players do. More extensive means more trustworthy, and more indicative of reality.
In my case, one thing I've done is used automated software to check billions of spins for patterns (I published part of the software free so anyone can test, but RX can do the same too). All imaginable patterns. For example, Turbo claims hot numbers are more likely to spin again soon. This has been tested exhaustively by so many people. You could have a repeater like 32,32. Or 32 spinning 3 times in 10 spins. Or whatever other sequence with "hot numbers". The result is betting hot numbers is no different to betting cold or even random numbers.
Yes you can win by being careful, but this is still just luck.
You might increase your bets after winnings and get lucky with some big wins. You'd think that's playing smart... because there was a "winning streak". OR, you could lose on those big bets and be back to square one.
My point is money management, and being wise is actually just illusion. Because if the winning number is random, you don't know if your "wise choices" will cost or make you money.
It sounds like you're differentiating between a system that can win, to a system that changes the odds. Everyone knows any system can win (with luck). But a system that has a long term advantage is completely different.
Take for example a "wise choice". When the spin is completely unpredictable, how can it be a wise choice? If there was a repeater like 32,32, is it wise to bet 32 again? Or wise to not bet 32 again because it would be unlikely to spin again? But actually if you test enough spins, you'll know undoubtedly that either situation happens exactly as often as the other. So there is no "wise choice". It's just random.
Now compare a system that changes the odds, which might determine that #16 is most likely to spin next. So then of course you would bet #16.
It's not specifically the ODDS. It is the combination of ODDS AND PAYOUT.
The problem is the PAYOUT is lower than the ODDS.
For example, consider a coin toss. The ODDS are 50/50 and payout 1:1. If you play for a while, you can expect to break even.
Now imagine every 10th win you have, you need to pay back that win like a tax. So no matter what you do, you are eventually going to lose. It doesn't matter what system you have, or how wise your choices are. You are still going to lose.
Roulette's house edge is a lot like this. The difference is you can change the ODDS, so that although you still have the annoying tax, you can win more than you lose.
Edge has nothing to do with money management or wise choices. It has to do with improving the odds so the unfair payout is overcome.
If he thinks he can bet black is due, or if red is on a streak, it is gamblers fallacy. Because red and black are just as likely to spin next. The proof is tests over billions (and more) spins that prove after 1 black in 10 spins, the next spin being black or red will occur the same amount of times. So it isn't mere theoretical odds. It is reality. The only exception is if there is an underlying physical reason why one color may win over the other (like a bias).
I have an open mind. Maybe there are other reasons. But it has been tested exhaustively, and there is no evidence at all to support one color is more likely to spin over the other.
I'm a logical person. So when there is no evidence to support something, I'm skeptical. And when the evidence we do have clearly suggests and demonstrates something, it's only reasonable to come to the conclusion.
In this case, with 1 black in 10 spins. Besides bias and such physical conditions, I know of no reason why one color is more likely to spin over another. But what information I do have to make up my mind is extensive test results that show red/black are just as likely as each other to spin next. We cannot ignore extensive testing. It is not a matter of opinion. It is just what the tests show. It has nothing to do with what we want or hope for. Nothing to do with wisdom. It's plain do the tests and see.
But they aren't being refuted. The tests show the odds are actually correct. Of course there is short term variance. For example, after 10 spins there might be 1 red, 10 blacks. There might be 4 blacks, 6 reds. Might be 5 blacks, 5 reds. But every combination of reds/blacks will happen the same amount of times. You cant bet for or against any combination because it's all just "random".
NOTE: Nothing is ever actually random. It's all just cause and effect. But when you cannot realistically predict things, they can be called "random".
This is just simple statistics and variance. You can never know which of those numbers they'll be. And you can never know even if this will happen.
Its like how Turbo says in 37 spins there will never be 37 unique numbers. Actually if you test enough spins, it will happen. And if you test enough spins, it clearly happens the same amount of times as any other combination of spins.
No you don't. But then that would be success from luck, not from a real long term advantage.
The odds are real. Extensive testing makes this very clear. You are talking about variance (anything being possible).
Understanding odds is nothing like believing something is due. It's actually the opposite. It is understanding that nothing is due. It is understanding that after any combination of consecutive spins, that nothing is due, and any number spinning next is equally likely.
Where's the proof? Testing billions of spins. Again we cant just ignore what the history and extensive testing shows.
It seems like you're saying players can still be successful without worrying about odds. And yes that's true, but again that would be from luck - not wisdom or smart choices.
In the end, all professional play is ODDS VS PAYOUT. Its the same for any investment - risk vs return.
If you are "gambling" then the risks outweigh the returns. If you are an advantage player, then you are rigging the game to be in your favor, so the returns outweigh the risks.
Roulette is a percentage game Steve. If you know you will win a minumum number of times in a set number of games. It doesnt matter if you are risking 3 to win 1 or whatever.
You then factor in money management to put the balance of return in your favour. House edge is negated once you have a winning minumum expectancy. If I play ten games of whatever. And know im always winning at least 5 of them no matter what configuration those 5 wins come in. I am now in control.
This is a thought process that few are able to run with. But its a reality that beats this game. Putting a system in an artificial bot and watching it fail is not reality. Its far too mechanical and sterile.
All any player of this game needs. Is to come out on top in their lifetime. We will all be dust before we play a billion spins. We dont just sit around playing like robots. We use judgement and money managment to put things in our favour.
This i learnt from a book by Brett Morton called playing to win. Read it sometime. You will get another perspective on beating the game.
Quote from: sentinel3 on Jan 18, 06:05 PM 2018If you know you will win a minumum number of times in a set number of games
Yes, but you don't know with enough certainty to overcome the house edge. In fact the certainty you know gives you a -2.7% edge, which is exactly the same as the house edge. In other words, with all the complex bet selection, nothing at all has changed.
What you are saying is like saying after 100 spins, you know there will be about 50 reds, 50 blacks (ignoring 0). So then you bet on the "percentage" knowing you will win half the time. It just doesn't work like that.
Quote from: sentinel3 on Jan 18, 06:05 PM 2018All any player of this game needs. Is to come out on top in their lifetime
Thats not too hard. But how long is a lifetime? And if 10 players all use the same system for a "lifetime", they will probably all lose. Maybe there will be 1 winner if a lifetime is 5000 spins. So whos' the lucky winner then? They are all using the same system, so its all just luck. that's not bearting roulette. That's gambling.
Brett Morton has no idea what he's talking about. Or maybe you misunderstood him. If you are looking to win just over your lifetime of spins, then try betting low in losing streaks, and betting high in winning streaks. That's ultimately what any such system tries to do. Sounds ok right? Well actually it's not, because how do you know you arent missing big wins when betting low, and vice versa?
This is all really old news. I'm sorry to say this is all just what every professional in the industry takes for granted. It is just known fact. And anyone wjho wants to prove it to themselves can easily do some testing.
An easy way to end a debate about all this, like what works and what doesnt work, is DO LOTS OF TESTING. It's really simple. It will end any debate easily.
Quote from: Steve on Jan 18, 06:22 PM 2018
Yes, but you don't know with enough certainty to overcome the house edge. In fact the certainty you know gives you a -2.7% edge, which is exactly the same as the house edge. In other words, with all the complex bet selection, nothing at all has changed.
What you are saying is like saying after 100 spins, you know there will be about 50 reds, 50 blacks (ignoring 0). So then you bet on the "percentage" knowing you will win half the time. It just doesn't work like that.
Thats not too hard. But how long is a lifetime? And if 10 players all use the same system for a "lifetime", they will probably all lose. Maybe there will be 1 winner if a lifetime is 5000 spins. So whos' the lucky winner then? They are all using the same system, so its all just luck. that's not bearting roulette. That's gambling.
Brett Morton has no idea what he's talking about. Or maybe you misunderstood him. If you are looking to win just over your lifetime of spins, then try betting low in losing streaks, and betting high in winning streaks. That's ultimately what any such system tries to do. Sounds ok right? Well actually it's not, because how do you know you arent missing big wins when betting low, and vice versa?
This is all really old news. I'm sorry to say this is all just what every professional in the industry takes for granted. It is just known fact. And anyone wjho wants to prove it to themselves can easily do some testing.
An easy way to end a debate about all this, like what works and what doesnt work, is DO LOTS OF TESTING. It's really simple. It will end any debate easily.
No Steve, im not taking about betting over such a large number as 100. Im saying this. You play 10 games and know the vast majority of the time you win AT LEAST 5 of them. But you usually win more. 70% being a more common breakdown.
You have to divorce yourself from thinking as the casinos want you to think. House edge exists. Table limits exist. And of course variance exists. But they cannot overcome precise judgement and money management.
5000 spins is not a life time. But one billion spins is 20 lifetimes. If I play one game a day. And that game is over in a maximum of 3 spins. And I win at least 345 of those 365 games. Where I am risking 7 to win 1
Am I winning or not?. You will of couse say thats not enough. It has to survive a billion spin bot test. Or my money stays in the bank.
If i am winning 100 units each day. At least 345 days out of the year. And losing 700 units 20 days out of the year. Anyway you spin it ( no pun intended) I am winning.
If I do that for 30 years. How many spins have I played? Not even 20,000. But I have made money. I am a winner. This is REALITY. Not lets put said system in a mechanical bot and see how long it takes to tank.
We are dealing in the real world. Not inside a computer. And as long as i end a calendar year in profit. Nothing else matters.
Quote from: sentinel3 on Jan 18, 06:48 PM 2018No Steve, im not taking about betting over such a large number as 100. Im saying this. You play 10 games and know the vast majority of the time you win AT LEAST 5 of them. But you usually win more. 70% being a more common breakdown.
Its very easy to win MOST of the time.
For example, play just 10 spins and bet on red. Double your bet after losses and walk away when you profit. You will win MOST of the time. But when you lose, you lose all your winnings and more.
Quote from: sentinel3 on Jan 18, 06:48 PM 2018You have to divorce yourself from thinking as the casinos want you to think
The casino wants you to think the way you are thinking.
Quote from: sentinel3 on Jan 18, 06:48 PM 2018But they cannot overcome precise judgement and money management.
Judgement of what? Is your judgement making you win more often than you would with random bets?
Quote from: sentinel3 on Jan 18, 06:48 PM 2018But one billion spins is 20 lifetimes
That's 50m spins per person. Seeing around 100,000 spins is probably the most any player would see in their lifetime.
Quote from: sentinel3 on Jan 18, 06:48 PM 2018If I play one game a day. And that game is over in a maximum of 3 spins. And I win at least 345 of those 365 games. Where I am risking 7 to win 1
How much do you lose when you lose?
And would this strategy work for 100 players if they all used it too? What would be the combined profit/loss? How would you know which players won or lost?
Quote from: sentinel3 on Jan 18, 06:48 PM 2018We are dealing in the real world. Not inside a computer. And as long as i end a calendar year in profit. Nothing else matters.
If I have 2 apples in a basket, and eat 1, how many apples do I have left?
2 - 1 = 1 apple left.
That's the math. It IS real life.
What you are doing is incorrectly calculating, then calling math irrelevant because it's just numbers.
I'm sorry but you're quite wrong, and only looking at one side of the equation.
I won't go into details. This is my stand.
If you don't somehow change the odds by whatever means, your win is based on luck. Math dictates that you will lose itlr.
Who knows when this itlr is applicable to YOU ? It could be your next series of bets although I won't wish it upon you.
Quote from: cht on Jan 18, 08:00 PM 2018If you don't somehow change the odds by whatever means, your win is based on luck. Math dictates that you will lose itlr.
That's correct. So if you are changing the odds in your favor, you will win in the long run.
What I'm jumping up and down about is how odds can and cannot be changed. You can check every possible combination of spins for roulette and cross check for patterns that can be used to change odds. That would take a very long and unfeasible amount time. Or you can check the combinations of a wheel with just 10 numbers. It's the same thing, different scale.
This is my general observation.
Most people try to use progressive bet sizing to circumvent variance.
Not totally wrong BUT you have to do the math correctly. Based on what I read on forums, tbh they all are a joke. No offence.
I have posted on Andre Chass thread a progression table based on his progressive bet sizing. I have yet to provide the math implication yet. It's simple, really.
The summary about progression is this - place your largest bet on the highest probability of occurence vice versa. If it's net negative probability it makes no sense to place a bet. It's that simple. If you can't determine the probability your progression is nonsensical math wise. :twisted:
Quote from: cht on Jan 18, 08:14 PM 2018
This is my general observation.
I have posted on Andre Chass thread a progression table based on his progressive bet sizing. I have yet to provide the math implication yet. It's simple, really.
I said on my thread to forget long progression. It's a big mistake use it.
I use a "positive progression". I call it positive because it's a short progression and I win more fast. If your strategy is a winner the progression will be a winner. It rarely will fail.
My strategy works flatbet, but it takes too much time.
Quote from: Steve on Jan 18, 05:48 PM 2018
It's not specifically the ODDS. It is the combination of ODDS AND PAYOUT.
The problem is the PAYOUT is lower than the ODDS.
Exactly.
And that's where the casino's Achilles heals lie - it's a fixed unfair payout unlike .....
Quote from: Andre Chass on Jan 18, 08:31 PM 2018
I said on my thread to forget long progression. It's a big mistake use it.
I use a "positive progression". I call it positive because it's a short progression and I win more fast. If your strategy is a winner the progression will be a winner. It rarely will fail.
My strategy works flatbet, but it takes too much time.
The same math rules apply to all progressions, positive and negative.
Progressive bet sizing has to make math sense. It's got nothing to do with winning faster. Simply put, we bet more because we have more chance to win vv. No offence pls.
Quote from: cht on Jan 18, 08:45 PM 2018
The same math rules apply to all progressions, positive and negative.
Progressive bet sizing has to make math sense. It's got nothing to do with winning faster. Simply put, we bet more because we have more chance to win vv. No offence pls.
I think you and Steve didn't understand it yet. I make TG words my own.
"I play with a progression, progressions aren't the enemy and only amplify whatever is happening. If you're playing a method that loses - you'll lose more, if you're playing a winning method, you'll win more. In a typical system using a progression just means digging into a bottomless hole at some point and small wins that don't recover. That's not what I'm doing."
Quote from: Andre Chass on Jan 18, 08:55 PM 2018
I think you and Steve didn't understand it yet. I make TG words my own.
"I play with a progression, progressions aren't the enemy and only amplify whatever is happening. If you're playing a method that loses - you'll lose more, if you're playing a winning method, you'll win more. In a typical system using a progression just means digging into a bottomless hole at some point and small wins that don't recover. That's not what I'm doing."
Pls don't misread my post, don't add to it or take away from it. It is what it is - not more not less.
Cht
Which number does have the higher probability? There can several or all same.
Quote from: Madi on Jan 18, 09:01 PM 2018
Cht
Which number does have the higher probability? There can several or all same.
Good question. :thumbsup:
Find out yourself every single number. Not mocking you. It takes that much to properly understand what the math behind the spins are telling you. Seriously, do the work
CORRECTLY AND COMPLETELY.
Seriously is there any math for next spin or the previous spin that we got??
Andre, really I do get what he's saying. That's not the problem.
The problem is the method of bet selection is no different to random with respect to accuracy. While things like "accuracy and odds doesn't matter" and "we bet on things that must happen" can be said, they are incorrect because:
1. Without accuracy increase, your bet selection is as good as random guessing
2. Nothing "must happen". We still know there will probably be half-half reds/blacks. But you cant use that, at all. You are always going to be not quite accurate enough. Around 2.7% not accurate enough.
Unfortunately it is just not being understood, we keep going in circles, and people think I'm the one lacking understanding. Many people lately seem to think they have the HG all of a sudden. Well I suppose i wasn't any different a while back. I really do hope i'm wrong and everyone keeps winning.
Steve, I don't think you got your thinking wrong, your tests is also not wrong.
Fact is I tested just like you, got the exact same results like you and everybody else. I was exhausted testing the shit in every possible way I could think off.
That is until it dawned on me there has to be a basis for the test. This basis has to be irrefutably rock solid grounded on sound math.
If a A-level student who got grade A for Further Math and good at Stats1/2/3 given the full info he should have no problem to solve this equation.
Seriously, I personally think there are already some guys out there who know what I'm talking about. They have the solution way before me, just that they are keeping quiet. It's too simple and obvious that these math competent guys will miss it. TG and winkel posted their stuff years ago.
Quote from: cht on Jan 19, 12:40 AM 2018That is until it dawned on me there has to be a basis for the test. This basis has to be irrefutably rock solid grounded on sound math
I was about to write on the similar lines and you beat me to it. You don’t have to test billions of spins to prove something right or wrong, as long as the underlying maths proves it, a short term test is more than what is needed. Also it is wrong to assume that just because you have tested billions of spins for tons of years, you have closed all possibilities.
There is clearly confusion going on about odds and payouts. Odds of the game cannot be changed. Payouts cannot be changed. Odds of next spin cannot be changed. But it is wrong to assume that as long as there is no fair payout you cannot win long term. There are lots of no zero roulette games available and people will be minting money. Zero and unfair payouts are only part of the problem. Anyone who understands basic maths can easily tell this and it doesn’t need an expert.
One thing that stood out for me in the whole thread is the point of view on odds of next spin. Odds of next spin will not matter as long as you see spins as Part of a larger set of spins which abide by certain characteristics. While you may not be able predict next spin or the next set of spins, there must be a way somewhere out there which can help benefit from the characteristics. I can’t say for sure, but that might be what turbogenius and cht and original poster of this thread is pointing to.
Quote from: Steve on Jan 18, 05:48 PM 2018
Its like how Turbo says in 37 spins there will never be 37 unique numbers. Actually if you test enough spins, it will happen. And if you test enough spins, it clearly happens the same amount of times as any other combination of spins.
Quote from: Steve on Jan 18, 05:48 PM 2018
In my case, one thing I've done is used automated software to check billions of spins for patterns
Hi Steve, in your billions of spins did you ever see 37 unique numbers!?
Quote from: Blood Angel on Jan 19, 07:00 AM 2018Hi Steve, in your billions of spins did you ever see 37 unique numbers!?
I doubt because the probability or as people say here ODDS of that is more than a billion spins.
Quote from: Blood Angel on Jan 19, 07:00 AM 2018
Hi Steve, in your billions of spins did you ever see 37 unique numbers!?
I don't think so, but there are countless other combinations i never saw either. Before you think its proof you can make a winning system around this principle, keep this in mind......
Test a hypothetical wheel with 5 numbers. All the principles are the same as a wheel with 37 numbers. And clearly any combination of spins will occur as often as another, including 5 unique numbers in 5 spins. The only difference with 37 pockets is more possibilities.
Here's an easy test. Get a file with a few billion spins. Use my free software and check for a sequence of spins like 0,0,0. Or 1,2,3, or 3,2,1, or 34,8,16.
The software tells you how many times these sequences spin. You'll find they happen around the same amount of times.
There's more to it, but its a simple demonstration that hot or cold numbers is fallacy. So is the impossibility of 37 unique numbers in 37 spins. Its just another combination of spins.
Quote from: Steve on Jan 19, 07:38 AM 2018Get a file with a few billion spins. Use my free software and check for a sequence of spins like 0,0,0. Or 1,2,3, or 3,2,1, or 34,8,16.
I read your posts on this subject and your intentions and genuine. You don’t want people to be misguided. I am also not able to see how this will work. However the arguments that you are putting across is weak and comes across as having a very narrow mindset. It is like someone saying I have got chocolate milk that is brown in colour and you saying I have seen milk it is always white and hence chocolate milk has to be white.
No one is talking about patterns. There is a difference between patterns and what is being suggested here. All is being said is there will be repeaters and is governed by maths. This I think you will agree to. And it is being said that repeaters will make some numbers appear more than what their odds suggest for a set period of time. This I think again being an expert as you claim in roulette you will agree to.
As soon as you agree to the above you are agreeing to the fact that odds of certain numbers appearing has been changed for a short duration of time and your question of odds changing has been answered.
If you don’t agree to the above, then you are not coming to the party with an open mindset. They are talking about repeaters and not numbers in general. All they are saying is a repeater can happen only if a number is already on the screen. Any other number you cannot call a repeater. A dealer starts spinning and the first 3 numbers are 36, 20 and 13. Now only these three numbers can repeat, nothing else. Odds of a repeater is 3/37 which is better than predicting what the next number is which will always remain 1/37. So the odds of a repeater is different from the odds of a number.
Now, what is not clear is how do you find those numbers that repeat. How do you find those numbers whose odds are changed for a short duration. There are claims that are vague. Claimants will remain vague for whatever reason and the proofs will never be sufficient. It will be a cyclic argument which will confuse and muddle it further. One has to be wise and let the readers decide whether to spend time investigate this further or not.
This is an endless argument about proving or disproving something that has not been and will never be explained clearly.
Quote from: Steve on Jan 18, 07:18 PM 2018
Its very easy to win MOST of the time.
For example, play just 10 spins and bet on red. Double your bet after losses and walk away when you profit. You will win MOST of the time. But when you lose, you lose all your winnings and more.
The casino wants you to think the way you are thinking.
Judgement of what? Is your judgement making you win more often than you would with random bets?
That's 50m spins per person. Seeing around 100,000 spins is probably the most any player would see in their lifetime.
How much do you lose when you lose?
And would this strategy work for 100 players if they all used it too? What would be the combined profit/loss? How would you know which players won or lost?
If I have 2 apples in a basket, and eat 1, how many apples do I have left?
2 - 1 = 1 apple left.
That's the math. It IS real life.
What you are doing is incorrectly calculating, then calling math irrelevant because it's just numbers.
I'm sorry but you're quite wrong, and only looking at one side of the equation.
Steve you have too much respect and fear of the odds and payout of the game of roulette.
Im not sure you can grasp what im putting across here. It matters NOT that 1 plus 1=2. When you know the vast majority of the time you will WIN.
What you are assuming is an endless attempt to garner a profit. Until you either win or bust.
Thats not what im implying here. Roulette is a PERCENTAGE GAME. Nothing more nothing less.
If I say i will always win at least 5 times out of 10. How do you lose? You know in that framwork of 10 games. 5 belong to you at LEAST. Now once you know that the fear is gone.
Nothing variance can do means anything to you. At the end of the day you are STILL going to win at least 5 times out of 10.
Thats the thinking that you and most cannot grasp. You keep dwelling on the house edge. And variance and all that you think you know. Makes or breaks your success or failure with this game.
All I care about is hitting my minumum expectancy. Ive had sessions where zero hit 6 times. The ball hit a single dozen 10 straight times. Landed on the same number 4 times in row. Came off the wheel entirely.
I STILL got my 5 wins out of ten minumum. I make my own rules. And variance is bent into my blueprint. Its tamed in my framework.
It can do whatever it wants. Those 5 wins minumum are still coming. If I lost 7 or 8 out of ten. Then ive got a bad run. But while im getting my 5 out of ten or better. The result is certain profit.
Yes a hundred people will be successful if they follow the system to the letter. A good system doesnt fail. The person playing it fails first. Thats what casinos know and need.
Your greed and impatience are your enemies. As Brett Morton says in his stellar book playing to win.
The ENEMY in the casino is YOU. You will fail and falter. Before any good system.
I'm sorry guys, you got it backwards.
Who's right, and who's wrong. What's a good way to know?
Quote from: Steve on Jan 19, 09:16 AM 2018
I'm sorry guys, you got it backwards.
Who's right, and who's wrong. What's a good way to know?
There is no way unless the one who claims tells step by step what he does and am pretty certain that he won’t.
I explained many times. Usually ts not understood, and proper testing is not done. What's left is opinion and inaccurate perception.
Quote from: Steve on Jan 19, 07:38 AM 2018
I don't think so, but there are countless other combinations i never saw either. Before you think its proof you can make a winning system around this principle, keep this in mind......
Test a hypothetical wheel with 5 numbers. All the principles are the same as a wheel with 37 numbers. And clearly any combination of spins will occur as often as another, including 5 unique numbers in 5 spins. The only difference with 37 pockets is more possibilities.
Here's an easy test. Get a file with a few billion spins. Use my free software and check for a sequence of spins like 0,0,0. Or 1,2,3, or 3,2,1, or 34,8,16.
The software tells you how many times these sequences spin. You'll find they happen around the same amount of times.
There's more to it, but its a simple demonstration that hot or cold numbers is fallacy. So is the impossibility of 37 unique numbers in 37 spins. Its just another combination of spins.
I think the point here is that a combination of 37 uniques has the same chance as any other combination of spins.
However, there are more possible combinations of spins with any chosen repeat number, then there are combinations of 37 uniques. For example, I can have more possible combinations where number 0 repeats at least once, then combinations of 37 uniques. Do the math. No ofense.
QuoteDo the math. No ofense.
Groups of combinations are more likely because there are more of the possible outcomes in each group. Knowing this doesn't at all help, because you still don't know which group with any change in certainty. I understand the math. I'm not offended by your misunderstanding.
And besides, this is what i dont get. If I'm just the ignorant one with a closed mind, why aren't any system players making millions? Why do we only hear about the math, logic, thinking, ap guys?
Quote from: Steve on Jan 19, 07:00 PM 2018And besides, this is what i dont get
you are right. The thing is knowing this doesn’t help. But looks like people are claiming it does help and not ready to share. Now it is up to readers who want to pursue this further. Some might spend some effort to pursue this further and fail. Some like cht might end up somewhere. Either ways it is time well spent rather than getting into arguments talking about something which has not been detailed in the first place.
Usually enough about a system is released to know the general principle of bet selection. If people properly tested principles there wouldn't be any argument.
Quote from: Steve on Jan 19, 07:00 PM 2018
And besides, this is what i dont get. If I'm just the ignorant one with a closed mind, why aren't any system players making millions? Why do we only hear about the math, logic, thinking, ap guys?
Because they would be shut down Steve. Do you really think an online casino/bookmaker or even a walk in casino. Is gonna stand by and let someone fleece them?
I think with your experience you should know better. Ive had online casinos get funny with me for winning a few hundred quid.
They dont like winners Steve. I have 10 online accounts. And I have to rotate around them. So I never win on anyone more than once a week.
I had a friend who won just 700 quid in one day from william hill. And they started to give him trouble.
So even if you have a system that you know is a winner Steve. You have to stay under the radar. And not win too much at one time to be ALLOWED to keep going.
Tell me Steve do you know any online casinos that will allow me to take 50k plus from them in one year. And not stop my account? If you do please do tell..And I will join them TODAY.
Nonsense because millions can be made without detection if done carefully. But the people claiming to have the hg or at least the secret have probably not even made $10k
Especially if you had a system that so easily blended in with the typical bets casinos expect cannot possibly have a legitimate edge, it would be very easy to win millions.
Quote from: Steve on Jan 20, 05:39 AM 2018
Nonsense because millions can be made without detection if done carefully. But the people claiming to have the hg or at least the secret have probably not even made $10k
Well this is where you explain how to do that.
Quote from: Steve on Jan 20, 05:47 AM 2018
Especially if you had a system that so easily blended in with the typical bets casinos expect cannot possibly have a legitimate edge, it would be very easy to win millions.
Tell me how Steve. WINNING attracts attention. How do I even take a grand a day off a casino without them stopping me???
I had problems a few years back with William Hill sportsbook withdrawing money...the hoops I had to go through with evidence it was me...showing bank transfers into my account..proof of who I was ..etc but was fine when it was eventually sorted...now I’ve had no problems withdrawing...my best advice which I think works for me is withdrawing from the mobile app side..I don’t know why but I’ve never had any problems and it’s in my bank account in 3 days...
As to changing odds into your favour I think my sector system 2 shows you can have a bit of an edge ...knowing that your outcome happens more than lose...and the way the profit return of the win by betting the double dozen progression on a 10 unit split instead of 12 splits gives the odds advantage..
.the selection itself is based on the law of the third that two thirds of sectors on average in 9 spins..ie average 6
Knowing this and the trigger I set and the odds bet with a return win profit higher than you would expect becouse of the offset of splits selected could be along the lines of probability and odds in your favour...
So long as you have more wins than losses on any system your a winner
Hope you all understand that this explanation means you look at odds differently...not the probability that something is due to the odds..the system selection gives you that probability .but by changing the payout of the odds in your favour towards the probability..hope I’ve explained that right
Quote from: 6th-sense on Jan 20, 06:46 AM 2018
I had problems a few years back with William Hill sportsbook withdrawing money...the hoops I had to go through with evidence it was me...showing bank transfers into my account..proof of who I was ..etc but was fine when it was eventually sorted...now I’ve had no problems withdrawing...my best advice which I think works for me is withdrawing from the mobile app side..I don’t know why but I’ve never had any problems and it’s in my bank account in 3 days...
As to changing odds into your favour I think my sector system 2 shows you can have a bit of an edge ...knowing that your outcome happens more than lose...and the way the profit return of the win by betting the double dozen progression on a 10 unit split instead of 12 splits gives the odds advantage..
.the selection itself is based on the law of the third that two thirds of sectors on average in 9 spins..ie average 6
Knowing this and the trigger I set and the odds bet with a return win profit higher than you would expect becouse of the offset of splits selected could be along the lines of probability and odds in your favour...
So long as you have more wins than losses on any system your a winner
Yes 6th sense..When you are losing they love you. Hey chum deposit some more money and lets watch you lose that too.
But as soon as you start winning consistently their attitude changes. I had been with one site for two years. But had lost more than I won on it.
Since September when i started playing PB. My winnings have increased my innitial 40 quid deposit 5 times. Not alot of money. But all of a sudden they wanted me to prove my age and national status.
How come MY AGE AND NATIONAL STATUS DIDNT MATTER WHEN I WAS LOSING??? See theres alot of sour grape greedy dishonest people on these sites.
Thats why I said to Steve show me a site that loves WINNERS. And im heading straight there.
Strange when put on the spot about how to win big without getting banned. He couldnt anwser that. And has gone awol.
And that is why you dont hear of anyone winning millions at this game over time. Not that it cant be done.
The people watching wont allow it. They really wont. I can see myself reaching a point. Where i will have to go to real casinos to play this system.
As once I reach the level im heading for 100 quid a day. No online casino will allow that for long. I can just see it happening.
Yep they were pretty hard to please and I’ve had the same arguments you have by the sounds of it ...but since I’ve gone through that and used the mobile app I’ve had no problems since...I’ve withdrawn over £1200 before now in one hit and even get emails soon after to rate there service...
But they are a nightmare at the beginning and sometimes during been through it all with them
Quote from: 6th-sense on Jan 20, 10:33 AM 2018
Yep they were pretty hard to please and I’ve had the same arguments you have by the sounds of it ...but since I’ve gone through that and used the mobile app I’ve had no problems since...I’ve withdrawn over £1200 before now in one hit and even get emails soon after to rate there service...
But they are a nightmare at the beginning and sometimes during been through it all with them
Excellent. The site im talking about is called Betway. My worst experience was 888casino.com. they wanted me to cancel my withdrawal.
The only two sites that ive had no friction with are Ladbrokes and Paddypower. Two of the biggest uk bookmakers. Stand alone casinos I dont trust. And William Hill a big uk bookmaker can be funny too.
I put the question to Steve once again. Where is the online site that will congratulate me for taking 50k off them. If he can show me this site..i will give him 25% of everything i win. And thats a promise.
Hello kav,
Your moderation of your roulette30 forum is dumb.
The dumb has just got dumber.
Your moderator or yourself can't even understand simple English. The post I made is sarcasm. Pointing the gun at you know who.
SARCASM, understand sarcasm ? :xd: :xd: :xd:
I admit I missed that.
But you are a completely new member, so maybe you should explain the moderation with this instead of making characterizations.
It has nothing to do with English, it has to do with not knowing who makes the post, to understand sarcasm.
Ban removed.
Your email address didn't help either.
Quote from: Kav on Feb 12, 03:11 AM 2018
Your email address didn't help either.
Zero email posted - don't tell me you can't read that.
Come on now - someone has to tell the activities that's putting down system players.
They are done with marketing purpose.
It's so obvious only the blind will miss that
I mean the email address looked like spam, created in a hurry for a specific purpose (like for example asdfasdfasdf@gmail.com)
Quote from: Kav on Feb 12, 03:20 AM 2018
I mean the email address looked like spam, created in a hurry for a specific purpose (like for example asdfasdfasdf@gmail.com)
Ofc the email look like spam.
Do you expect some real email that some random hacker can link back to me? Hell no way!
Steve sees the same email btw.
I joined your forum to see if I can talk system play there. Seems not. :(
It's AP shit everywhere.
Fark, I made this post while playing in the casino. Steve should be able to confirm that. Lol
Anyway, 1st time I hear that ppl are banned for less legitimate looking emails they register with. :thumbsup:
Or the truth is you didn't like I took a stab at your darling APers?
No, you were not banned for the email. I said that the spamy looking email and you being a new member, didn't help us understand you were being sarcastic.
But feel free to make your own conclusions.
Like I said, the dumb just got dumber. :twisted: