The worst GF for a roulette player is when he thinks that the HIT and RUN will help him avoid the house edge and ride only on the good fluctuations that will favour their system/systems.
They trend to think that with the hit and run approach their results will be a lot better than by playing continuously.
When you hear from players that are winning for months or maybe even years this doesn't mean that in the next visit plays they will not give their winning away + the BR.
We have all seen systems that passed 10.000 or more spins with profit because the good fluctuation on the particular spins helped their system to win on those partcular spins.But we also all know that after those 10.000 or more spins the system tanked badly giving all the winnings back + the BR.
This is the same things that is happening with the real play...in let s say in 100 visits the luck was on your side and won a great amount of money....but then as you continue to play the same thing with the 10.000 spins graph will happen in real play.after the 10.000 spins it will tank.
And those who think that 10.000 or more spins that their system passed in the testing is s a great amount of spins to win so they won t play more spins to lose is also a big fallacy that is coming from the luck of knowledge.
Because if they had tested the same system in an other set of 10.000 spins it is possible that the system won t be able to produce even +1 chip....because the bad fluctuation happened from the beginning....
So in the end of the day the point is NOT how many spins a system can pass...because this is just LUCK based on the certain set of spins that the system was tested on....
The real deal is the system to be able to pass ANY given set of spins and be able to always make +1 from the previous high.
Then If the above is happening we are speaking about a system that can win more than it loses...in other words a long run winner and in other words the H.G.
By using a system that is a loser by playing/testing it in continuous spins it doesn't mean that with a hit and run approach the system will perform better... SIMPLY BECAUSE WE NEVER KNOW WHEN WE SIT AT THE TABLE AND START PLAYING IF THE SPINS THAT ARE ABOUT TO BE SPUNED WILL FAVOUR OR KILL THE SYSTEM
By the above global rule is obvious that playing continuously or playing playing hit and run the result will be the same...because the betting spins are added and making it be the same in the long run.
I hope some members will be favoured from this thread....if not then it s their life and they can do what ever they like.
Quote from: Master_of_pockets on Sep 02, 10:45 AM 2012
The worst GF for a roulette player is when he thinks that the HIT and RUN will help him avoid the house edge and ride only on the good fluctuations that will favour their system/systems.
They trend to think that with the hit and run approach their results will be a lot better than by playing continuously.
When you hear from players that are winning for months or maybe even years this doesn't mean that in the next visit plays they will not give their winning away + the BR.
We have all seen systems that passed 10.000 or more spins with profit because the good fluctuation on the particular spins helped their system to win on those partcular spins.But we also all know that after those 10.000 or more spins the system tanked badly giving all the winnings back + the BR.
This is the same things that is happening with the real play...in let s say in 100 visits the luck was on your side and won a great amount of money....but then as you continue to play the same thing with the 10.000 spins graph will happen in real play.after the 10.000 spins it will tank.
And those who think that 10.000 or more spins that their system passed in the testing is s a great amount of spins to win so they won t play more spins to lose is also a big fallacy that is coming from the luck of knowledge.
Because if they had tested the same system in an other set of 10.000 spins it is possible that the system won t be able to produce even +1 chip....because the bad fluctuation happened from the beginning....
So in the end of the day the point is NOT how many spins a system can pass...because this is just LUCK based on the certain set of spins that the system was tested on....
The real deal is the system to be able to pass ANY given set of spins and be able to always make +1 from the previous high.
Then If the above is happening we are speaking about a system that can win more than it loses...in other words a long run winner and in other words the H.G.
By using a system that is a loser by playing/testing it in continuous spins it doesn't mean that with a hit and run approach the system will perform better... SIMPLY BECAUSE WE NEVER KNOW WHEN WE SIT AT THE TABLE AND START PLAYING IF THE SPINS THAT ARE ABOUT TO BE SPUNED WILL FAVOUR OR KILL THE SYSTEM
By the above global rule is obvious that playing continuously or playing playing hit and run the result will be the same...because the betting spins are added and making it be the same in the long run.
I hope some members will be favoured from this thread....if not then it s their life and they can do what ever they like.
Its like a mass so i say Hallelujah ;D Anyway lets go and find an infallible system.....
We players did find it,but those that rarely play and test zillion spins/they can't understand
that casino night session last 350-400 spins/will never find it.Why?????couse they are looking
for infalible zillion spins session/and we players are aware it doesn't exist/that is why we only
play 300 spins.
I am glad Robeen that you are one of the least in here that can understand simple maths and logic and u aren t in the hole of the GF.
So you have my respect.
There are more people that are out of the GF like speed,beretta etc.
As for for F_LAT_INO I can t say anything except that he will never see the light because he will never understand that those 300 spins sessions are adding up as he plays and the result is once again a long run play.
He will always be testing systems in 300 spins and if they are passing them he will be claiming he has the H.G(AGAIN for the 50th time) and he will start playing it posting about his winning results....when the system will tank he will never post it but we can always understand that it tanked because he is posted a new system. :D
And when you use the expression "WE players" it more accurate using the expression "WE gamblers"
We love you F_LAT_INO !
I play every day 200-400 spins.....every day..in the morning now..earning for my daily needs.
Know that you can not believe,but am winning....EVERY DAY...how come.
Herb stated @ VLS many many moons ago :-
test a system for 10,000 placed bets !!!!!
That's good enough for me :thumbsup:
O0
Quote from: ddarko on Sep 02, 11:42 AM 2012
Herb stated @ VLS many many moons ago :-
test a system for 10,000 placed bets !!!!!
That's good enough for me :thumbsup:
O0
Who is Herb? A new guru i missed? As a matter of fact you need 50k and 500k for systems with flatbetting or progression and z-score of more than 4 on top of that. Happy testing.....
Quote from: Robeenhuut on Sep 02, 11:47 AM 2012
Who is Herb? A new guru i missed? As a matter of fact you need 50k and 500k for systems with flatbetting or progression and z-score of more than 4 on top of that. Happy testing.....
Herb is Snowman, you know the guy from GG perhaps ??
He plays / played VB bias wheels etc etc PLUS he won & also wrote a book about it. As I don't know you from Adam I will stick with Herb's 10,000 placed bets thanks :thumbsup:
O0
You never know when a play will go into a loss. The risks will increase with the number of spins.
If you play 200-300 spins a day, it will not so likely it will go to bust, as if you run for 10000 on paper.
If the test pas 10000 on paper it is no proof it will not fail. quite opposite, it should have been better
do them in real play, some 100 spins at the time.
We will all meat losses, some soon some will it take longer time. Some win for very long time.
And luck is the major part if we survive.
I know of players won a lot, in short time, and then start to lose, and also know a few who seems to never lose, they use to win less at the time, playing at lower risk.
Everyone who win much in short time are lucky, as you can't win much witout risking much.
Its unlikely somebody win all the time for years, but on the other hand not impossible.
You see a few "Rentner" at every German casino.
Quote from: ddarko on Sep 02, 12:00 PM 2012
Herb is Snowman, you know the guy from GG perhaps ??
He plays / played VB bias wheels etc etc PLUS he won & also wrote a book about it. As I don't know you from Adam I will stick with Herb's 10,000 placed bets thanks :thumbsup:
O0
There are a lot of systems that need a huge BR because of the progression needed that can pass some 10.000 betting spins.
But even with those systems You can t make more money than the losing money.
But IF herb/snowman ment 10.000 spins FLATbetting then he is right.
And If he said that about 10.000 spins test then I am sure he ment flatbetting because he is a person that he has a great knowledge in roulette.
We had spoken a lot of times in the past through MSN
@ Ralph
I always test per 100 spin sessions therefore it would be 100 sessions of 100 spins ;)
A 100 spin session is just about enough before I'd need a nappy to play :-[ :-[
O0
Quote from: Master_of_pockets on Sep 02, 12:07 PM 2012
There are a lot of systems that need a huge BR because of the progression needed that can pass some 10.000 betting spins.
But even with those systems You can t make more money than the losing money.
The stuff I test and fail with is always flat betting...... :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[
O0
QuoteAs for for F_LAT_INO I can t say anything except that he will never see the light because he will never understand that those 300 spins sessions are adding up as he plays and the result is once again a long run play
Agreed, that's probably why his systems change .......... often, as eventually a bad run hits, which he does report to the forum then morphs the sustem or just abandones it completey.
QuoteI play every day 200-400 spins.....every day..in the morning now..earning for my daily needs.
Know that you can not believe,but am winning....EVERY DAY...how come
Luck?
QuoteWe players did find it,but those that rarely play and test zillion spins/they can't understand
that casino night session last 350-400 spins/will never find it.Why
It's been said to you many times, we who test for zillions of spins want to see what COULD eventually happen to a method/system, the fact that every method posted here hits a wall within 5 minutes of RNG testing upsets some people, especially those who posted the system in the first place, me and a lot of other members would rather know before hand if the risk is too high, for the life of me I can't understand those that want to keep their heads burried in the sand other than to have others thanking them for their wonderful method/system, some people just love the attention I guess.
Quote from: superman on Sep 02, 12:09 PM 2012
Agreed, that's probably why his systems change .......... often, as eventually a bad run hits, which he does report to the forum then morphs the sustem or just abandones it completey.
Luck?--constant repeats --air ball mach.
It's been said to you many times, we who test for zillions of spins want to see what COULD eventually happen to a method/system, the fact that every method posted here hits a wall within 5 minutes of RNG testing upsets some people, especially those who posted the system in the first place, me and a lot of other members would rather know before hand if the risk is too high, for the life of me I can't understand those that want to keep their heads burried in the sand other than to have others thanking them for their wonderful method/system, some people just love the attention I guess.
--
to me this is just having fun,constant exploring,new ideas waiting that some genius finally crack it.You think I'm not aware ofthe fact that you can't beat this thing with all known poss.---but youcan with diff. approaches...but you wouldn't know it as you have toexperience it to believe it is possible.
Air ball . dealer wheel or fair RNG are the exact same things....Random generators.
If someone knows the phisics of the game he can understand that all the above are producing random outcomes(with exception the tiled wheels that are being played with VB and the biased wheels that are being played with Bias style play.
In this forum, I realized one thing that is one hundred percent correct
****all who do not like the graphic that shows the system in the long-term, it is people who are gamblers with little knowing about math,statistics,etc..(roulette)*****
They can not understand one simple thing
If they play 300 spins per day and that is 109500 per year they will got the same result as they were playing 109500 spins without stopping
who does not understand this, he first need to lose a lot of money, and then he will maybe understand, maybe :)
all thing like plane, car, ship,etc... before mass production, it is necessary to first test on a certain number of kilometers, same is with roulette systems... :)
just test before play
The different between a manufactured product and a roulette is the product is not put together random, that's way it helps to test before producing.
A game can fail, we know, and there are better ways to test then trial and error.
If it last 100000 spins, it can fail the next,, it can fail any time, Winning is luck in the game of chance, so a winner do not need to be smart.
Nobody can tell before if the session will work good or not, and it can work for very long time, we no nothing before.
Very few win for long time, but you can find them.
A winner in a lottery with odds of one to half a billion exist, translate it in spins on the wheel.
funny how some people dwell on the same stuff over and over again. It does not make any sense.
This is not about roulette. This is not about the game. This is about telling how smart they are with their knowledge of the math and statistics. But the fact is with all their knowledge they practically don't know what to do with roulette...But they know how to talk to show off their great knowledge.
my 2 peneth....
MOP...nice post mate.
Its common sense, most of it: Beginers will listen and take it on board, but experienced roulette players will ignore common sense if it gets in the way of their belief that they can beat the casino all the time.
It doesnt matter too much if Flat_ino is winning or losing or completly lying to us all. What matters is that he enthusiastically posts up strong ideas for us to play with or reject. Just my view.
Turner
Mind u there is a guy here in this forum who is proving PRACTICALLY now how hit-run works for him.
Talk is cheap. Some guys know how to talk the talk and some guys instead show u how to walk a walk.
that's a difference. Winning in roulette practically or talking about math, statistics, plane or car production and space travelling.
Some guys which try to talk a talk to help out others would better help themselves first to walk a walk.
Quote from: iggiv on Sep 02, 03:41 PM 2012
funny how some people dwell on the same stuff over and over again. It does not make any sense.
This is not about roulette. This is not about the game. This is about telling how smart they are with their knowledge of the math and statistics. But the fact is with all their knowledge they practically don't know what to do with roulette...But they know how to talk to show off their great knowledge.
Then enlighten us Iggiv....post up!
NO, i won't. I got enough of crap for expressing my opinion. I even was told that i have no right to say what i think because i am a mod. Let's them talk the talk. I don't mind. There are no rules to prevent talking nonsense here. It is harmless.
Iggiv can i ask you one question in your rank, how many numbers there are in the European roulette wheel?
I would bet that he looked to check because he is not 100% sure ;D
When he mentions a guy he was referring to JL who is down on hit and run and now plays a progression, and until now have luck..
iggiv, keep these your sentences in brain and everything will be fine>>>> "i have no right to say what i think because i am a mod"<<<<<<
Quote from: iggiv on Sep 02, 03:55 PM 2012
NO, i won't. I got enough of nonsense for expressing my opinion. I even was told that i have no right to say what i think because i am a mod. Let's them talk the talk. I don't mind. There are no rules to prevent talking nonsense here. It is harmless.
Iggiv,
You seem very tetchy about Speed. I dont really care, but its kinda killed the flow of the post for me.
Didnt you write this in June?
OK, people. Want to ask u again. Whoever has issues with whoever for whatever reason -- please avoid and ignore each other!
You know who i asked already about it, now i want to ask everybody before u get in trouble. That forum is about roulette, not about discussing each other personalities, abilities, pluses and minuses,
personal life, IQ levels, mental health and so on. OK?
That's it F_LAT_INO you hit the nail on the head.
Cheers
John Rotterdam
Quote from: F_LAT_INO on Sep 02, 11:06 AM 2012
We players did find it,but those that rarely play and test zillion spins/they can't understand
that casino night session last 350-400 spins/will never find it.Why?????couse they are looking
for infalible zillion spins session/and we players are aware it doesn't exist/that is why we only
play 300 spins.
Mind u i did not attack anyone. Now this xxx tries to start with me again. I don't care. I am not gonna get involved. He can think about himself and me what he wants. I will better spend time on more productive stuff. I have enough what to do. What i said was not personal. I just find all this "theory" stuff talking about roulette nonsense. Whoever wants to make it personal -- i don't care to certain extention, u won't hurt me with your kindergarden nonsense. Whoever wants to make it TOO personal and annyoing --- just watch yourself before i start removing your posts again. Nuff said.
Quote from: speed on Sep 02, 02:07 PM 2012
In this forum, I realized one thing that is one hundred percent correct
****all who do not like the graphic that shows the system in the long-term, it is people who are gamblers with little knowing about math,statistics,etc..(roulette)*****
They can not understand one simple thing
If they play 300 spins per day and that is 109500 per year they will got the same result as they were playing 109500 spins without stopping
who does not understand this, he first need to lose a lot of money, and then he will maybe understand, maybe :)
all thing like plane, car, ship,etc... before mass production, it is necessary to first test on a certain number of kilometers, same is with roulette systems... :)
just test before play
EXACTLY!
And this is the purpose of this thread.
Quote from: iggiv on Sep 02, 03:41 PM 2012
funny how some people dwell on the same stuff over and over again. It does not make any sense.
This is not about roulette. This is not about the game. This is about telling how smart they are with their knowledge of the math and statistics. But the fact is with all their knowledge they practically don't know what to do with roulette...But they know how to talk to show off their great knowledge.
Its about trying to save some money from the ppl.
Quote from: turnerfeck on Sep 02, 03:45 PM 2012
my 2 peneth....
MOP...nice post mate.
Its common sense, most of it: Beginers will listen and take it on board, but experienced roulette players will ignore common sense if it gets in the way of their belief that they can beat the casino all the time.
Turner
I agree
Quote from: iggiv on Sep 02, 04:33 PM 2012
I just find all this "theory" stuff talking about roulette nonsense.
This isn t theory at all....theory is hit and run.and it s a wrong one too.
And if you find this thread nonsence then this shows everything about your understanding about roulette
Quote from: Master_of_pockets on Sep 02, 05:11 PM 2012
Its about trying to save some money from the people.
--what ??? ??---the other day in another thread you have said that youoften visit your local casino and play there. Correct ??? Why don't you save some money yourself,not going to casino, especially knowing this game is unbeatable,but you wana to save us some money instead.Brilliant idea.Thanks mate.
your memory start sleeping.
I never said i am going to the Casino often...
I said I went some visits for fun and played the CONCEPT that I desovered on the Ecs with a BR of only 10 chips.(5 euro chips so br 50 euros)..and because after some visits I made a nice amount of chips I STOPPED and I started testing the idea further with RX real spins in order NOT to lose the chips I made....
This is the real spirit of a non gambler.
This is the real spirit of a non gambler.
--The real spirit of being no gambler is to come to casino,see whats going on,have a drink
and come back home.....didn't I mention it somewhere today.
Yes whatever Flat.
Gambler is a person that goes to the Casino almost everyday with a br of 1000 chips and play a method that is a loser on the long run and he thinks that by playing it hit and run he will avoid the house edge. :)
Quote from: Master_of_pockets on Sep 02, 05:37 PM 2012
your memory start sleeping.
I never said i am going to the Casino often...
I said I went some visits for fun and played the CONCEPT that I desovered on the Ecs with a BR of only 10 chips.(5 euro chips so br 50 euros)..and because after some visits I made a nice amount of chips I STOPPED and I started testing the idea further with RX real spins in order NOT to lose the chips I made....
This is the real spirit of a non gambler.
Looks like your casino visit were a "hit and run" ;D
this is NOT ABOUT saving money. U guys say that whatever u play -- hit-n-run or just thousands spins in a row -- makes no difference. So why is that -- "biggest fallacy" ever? No difference u say.
So why u come over and over again with the same nonsense? "No difference, but i try to save people's money..."
The truth is u come here just to TALK about something u like to talk, and that's it. U said it many times, all the same stuff. Now saying it over and over again makes it nonsense. We know your opinion about hit-n-run, fine. U told about it MORE THAN ENOUGH.
no point to argue and no point to discuss. Useless discussion. Nothing new here. And no saving any money. Because in your opinion it makes no difference whatever.
All this is just a lame excuse. Excuse to come up and show off your "knowledge". And show that others who don't agree with u -- have no knowledge. Though it makes no difference for u how they play -- hit-n-run or not. All the same outcome. This way or that way u say nobody will save any money. Period.
Quote from: F_LAT_INO on Sep 02, 05:47 PM 2012
This is the real spirit of a non gambler.
--The real spirit of being no gambler is to come to casino,see what's going on,have a drink
and come back home.....didn't I mention it somewhere today.
the real spirit of non-gambler is not to mess with casino at all.
Well said mr. Igal
Cheers
Drazen
I don t consider as a gambler a person that goes to the casino for a drink and try with 10 chips to play a consept for fun 2ice a year and all the rest days is searching/testing methods.
But anyone has each own opinion
Opinions are like bottoms, everybody has one :thumbsup:
O0
Quote from: iggiv on Sep 02, 03:41 PM 2012
funny how some people dwell on the same stuff over and over again. It does not make any sense.
This is not about roulette. This is not about the game. This is about telling how smart they are with their knowledge of the math and statistics. But the fact is with all their knowledge they practically don't know what to do with roulette...But they know how to talk to show off their great knowledge.
Good post, I agree.
Ken
Too many mathboyzz and statistics but not enough experienced players who can truly say I do not gamble . The casino does by allowing me to play there.
Tamino
Quote from: Tamino on Sep 02, 08:03 PM 2012
I suspect iggiv is talking about Kimo ( who?). Kimo knows ALL the answers.
Tamino
If he does nothing in his print states it.
O0
EDIT = My reply above was to Tamino BEFORE he edited reply #41
Quote from: Tamino on Sep 02, 08:03 PM 2012
The casino does by allowing me to play there.
Isn't that the SAME quote from ND over @ VLS ??
O0
These posts always turn negative. It's very sad.
This is why those out there who are winning have no desire to share their ideas.
All the testing in the world will never compare to real life play. There are no exceptions. If you play, you understand this. If you don't play, you'll never understand it. (when I say "play", I mean on a regular basis, not a couple of times).
Bottom line is this .... stop spending time on forums endlessly pontificating and get into a real casino and win some money. Put your money where your mouth is and you'll be happy. If not, you'll at least be proud that you took a shot.
Quote from: Wally Gator on Sep 02, 08:34 PM 2012
These posts always turn negative. It's very sad.
This is why those out there who are winning have no desire to share their ideas. LoL
All the testing in the world will never compare to real life play. There are no exceptions. If you play, you understand this. If you don't play, you'll never understand it. (when I say "play", I mean on a regular basis, not a couple of times).
Bottom line is this .... stop spending time on forums endlessly pontificating and get into a real casino and win some money. Put your money where your mouth is and you'll be happy. If not, you'll at least be proud that you took a shot.
This is the way of thinking of a silly gambler or a casino promoter.
I'll be sure to take that silliness to the bank when I make my deposit. Hopefully my kids won't mind that I ignore your comments so as to continue to pay their college tuition costs.
well. U don't have to play with real money. u can use casino spin data, it is available, and play virtually.
the thing is -- never take anything for granted. I mean all this "i know for sure, the math says, the statistics are..."
Experiment yourself with the data. Try different approaches. U have nothing to lose. All virtual, all with real casino data. Try playing virtually the same methods many spins in a row, and try them as a hit-n-run with different variable parameters. Like how many spins to play, how many to skip, how much is a win goal, how much is a stop loss.
This is a smart approach. Approach "i know for sure this won't work" is not very smart, guys.
This is a theory. What i am talking about here -- is not a theory but rather my conclusions after long hours of analysis of different methods and approaches. And also after reading some material on the subject. U see, those "smart" guys reject anything they don't believe in.
"I learned statistics in the college, i learned high math in my university". That's it. They don't care much about practical analysis, they don't care much about real experience of real professional players. They just give u smart quotes and they will try to bash u and they
don't even care to really learn how to win the game. They know EVERYTHING already...
everything except how to win.
(link:://i345.photobucket.com/albums/p379/rocky6655/gif%20pictures/fight.gif)
MOP IGGIV
I haven't laughed that hard in awhile. Thanks Skakus !!!!!!
that's funny of course, but that topic is not personal for me. It is about the truth out there.
About commons sense. About experimenting yourself and making your own conclusions based on real experience, not on some old dogmas.
Quote from: Wally Gator on Sep 02, 10:22 PM 2012
I haven't laughed that hard in awhile. Thanks Skakus !!!!!!
mission accomplished :thumbsup:
good :)
good laughing is always good
I’m inclined to agree with both sides of the argument. It’s similar to the real wheel V rng argument.
If it makes no difference, or if there is no way to prove any difference, then both opinions should have equal standing.
The way I see it is systems should be engineered with real wheel application in mind. They should also be engineered with long run application in mind.
From there it should make no difference whether the system is played on a real wheel or rng, or whether it’s for the long run or hit & run.
With a real wheel there is a definite order to the numbers around the ring, whereas with rng there is no existing order. So the possibility remains that the finite nature of the number ring might throw up temporary bias from time to time, which could be capitalized on by system.
Hit & run style play is perfectly acceptable for very similar reasons. A system designed to play the long run will not suffer at all by playing hit & run, but the increased order of the hit & run play might throw up temporary bias from time to time, which could be capitalized on by system.
Having said that, it is also possible to design a hit & run game that plays on a continuous basis, never leaving the wheel for a moment, or one that leaves the wheel but picks up from where it left off any time you please.
I am very tired trying to explain some things to old gamblers. And this is last time, like last hope :)
Anyone who thinks that there is a difference between playing in a REAL casino and testing of the system on Roulette Extreme program (with live spins, with coded stop-loss-win and other GF), he is WRONG
In the past, I have tested many systems in roulette extreme software and others with live casino spins with coded stop-loss and without stop-loss, on long run the result is the same.(about -2.7%)
And i am very sorry for the mods of this forum who are limited, and share that limit with new people on forum and they are on beginning go to wrong path understanding of roulette game.
I guess that no one smart like to be moderator....:(
By the way I think that MOP would beat Iggiv, but Belorussia is far from MOP home ;D
So, here's my question/comment .....
Do you look at roulette or any other form of gambling as a business venture where risks are involved?
If you do, then you understand that there will never be anything that wins or is successful every single time.
Let's take real estate as an example. I'll use my own personal experience. Over the years I've owned investment properties, some commercial some residential. Some years I've done exceptionally well and other years I've lost a considerable amount. I am risking that my decisions will allow for long term success. By using strategies that allow for fluctuations in the market and any given economic down turn or boom I am hopeful that I will prosper. If I solely relied on statistics and math I would never purchase any piece of real estate because there are risks involved, there are no guarantees.
It's the same with casino visits. If you are blindly playing a strategy then you should expect to fail. However, if you are accepting the risk to reward ratio based upon your business acumen and making decisions that allow for upturns then you should expect to do well over the long term.
I can only speak from personal experience and can tell you that it's within yourself as to whether you will success or not. It is exceptionally important to have goals and discipline. The old adage "if its to be it's up to me" is an accurate one.
A final note ..... spend more time doing (playing) than talking (on forums). It's your life, it comes around once, live it.
Quote from: Wally Gator on Sep 03, 09:28 AM 2012
So, here's my question/comment .....
Do you look at roulette or any other form of gambling as a business venture where risks are involved?
If you do, then you understand that there will never be anything that wins or is successful every single time.
Let's take real estate as an example. I'll use my own personal experience. Over the years I've owned investment properties, some commercial some residential. Some years I've done exceptionally well and other years I've lost a considerable amount. I am risking that my decisions will allow for long term success. By using strategies that allow for fluctuations in the market and any given economic down turn or boom I am hopeful that I will prosper. If I solely relied on statistics and math I would never purchase any piece of real estate because there are risks involved, there are no guarantees.
It's the same with casino visits. If you are blindly playing a strategy then you should expect to fail. However, if you are accepting the risk to reward ratio based upon your business acumen and making decisions that allow for upturns then you should expect to do well over the long term.
I can only speak from personal experience and can tell you that it's within yourself as to whether you will success or not. It is exceptionally important to have goals and discipline. The old adage "if its to be it's up to me" is an accurate one.
A final note ..... spend more time doing (playing) than talking (on forums). It's your life, it comes around once, live it.
MOP you're right he's definitely the casino promoter. :)
I think only valuable computers (like Steve RC) can beat roulette in long run and some VB method..
Speed, i don't mind your views on roulette and your saying that i am wrong. But i really don't like
your trying to make all this personal. I think that u r wrong, u think i am wrong (in approach to play roulette). That's OK. I think that this thing against "hit-n-run" goes here almost like a religious war already though everybody agrees that "hit-n-run" at least does not make things worse. Some say it does not make things better or worse, some say it makes things better. So nobody here to lose money because they see it this way or another way if they play carefully. But still some start the same song again about fallacies, losing money or something like this. With no reason.
But the real problem is u try to make it too personal. I did not make it personal against u. I am not saying u r a fool or u don't have right to say what u want. But u try to make it insulting when u talk about me. It is not your concern who will beat whom and who is far away from where.
it does not have anything to do with roulette. You have never seen me or MOP or the way we play this game. And still u r talking. Trying to make it personal and insulting. This is VERY WRONG.
Quote from: speed on Sep 03, 09:43 AM 2012
MOP you're right he's definitely the casino promoter. :)
You guys finally got me after all these years ..... 8)
Skakus, what u say is making sense, but there is something....
Nobody so far in a history of roulette has been able to defeat roulette indefinitely on a consistent basis. But some people have been able to win from time to time. That's a fact. I think it makes sense to go from here. Doesn't it? I think this is unrealistic expectation to be able to defeat roulette all the time. But expectation to do it sometimes is more realistic. Even Wizard of Odds does not deny it.
Quote from: iggiv on Sep 03, 10:17 AM 2012
Speed, i don't mind your views on roulette and your saying that i am wrong. But i really don't like
your trying to make all this personal. I think that u r wrong, u think i am wrong (in approach to play roulette). That's OK. I think that this thing against "hit-n-run" goes here almost like a religious war already though everybody agrees that "hit-n-run" at least does not make things worse. Some say it does not make things better or worse, some say it makes things better. So nobody here to lose money because they see it this way or another way if they play carefully. But still some start the same song again about fallacies, losing money or something like this. With no reason.
But the real problem is u try to make it too personal. I did not make it personal against u. I am not saying u r a fool or u don't have right to say what u want. But u try to make it insulting when u talk about me. It is not your concern who will beat whom and who is far away from where.
it does not have anything to do with roulette. You have never seen me or MOP or the way we play this game. And still u r talking. Trying to make it personal and insulting. This is VERY WRONG.
You are here in this topic attacked me first i dont know why but u need to ignore me and i will ignore u.
Am posting 2 post per month and u attack me, this is not coincidence.
this is my last post so u do not expect answers from me.
Gator has been in those forum for long time. Longer than me. He has never promoted or advertised any casino.
All this is going too far. Blaming one or another for this or that just for having different opinion.
It has nothing to do with playing the game again.
Speed i did not attack u personally. All i attacked is your views on roulette and your (and MOP's) fruitless dwelling on the same subject.
I have no doubts u r an educated person and know a lot about industry organization and statistics.
The problem is you try to extrapolate your knowledge to roulette where it is not exactly applicable.
Another problem is that when u get into argument --instead of getting into it normally u try to make it personal.
And u said many things in this forum and i did not react somehow. Though u did mention me here in negative aspect.
U should realize that when i am against fruitless "knowledge" talking --it is not personal against anyone. This "talking a talk" instead of "walking a walk" does not help anyone. And i have right to say what i think about it.
Here we go again. Accusations and blamings..lol. Only way to win at Roulette is to learn reading Random.
/Over and Out
Maan, and what do u mean by that?
Quote from: Maan on Sep 03, 11:03 AM 2012
Here we go again. Accusations and blamings..LoL. Only way to win at Roulette is to learn reading Random.
/Over and Out
Well not only way, but in the way you said it, let it be =)
I belive you know that, whatever reading randomness means..
And perfectly sure that it won't be revealed.
Cheers
Drazen
Quote from: Wally Gator on Sep 03, 10:27 AM 2012
You guys finally got me after all these years ..... 8)
WG,
Don't take any notice...the name and avatar tell you all.
This is another math computer freak that probably never seen
inside of casino and now lecturing here...O ye many such
on this forum.
Quote from: Maan on Sep 03, 11:03 AM 2012
Here we go again. Accusations and blamings..LoL. Only way to win at Roulette is to learn reading Random.
/Over and Out
----Better Chinese....lol
Quote from: iggiv on Sep 03, 10:30 AM 2012
Nobody so far in a history of roulette has been able to defeat roulette indefinitely on a consistent basis.
Sry Iggv cannot agree with you on this comment. Just because you have never read/seen it happen doesn't mean it hasn't/doesn't happen.
Everybody thought all swans were white until that day a black one turned up ;)
O0
well, at least we don't know about such facts. Absolutely most of us anyway.
Quote from: iggiv on Sep 03, 11:50 AM 2012
well, at least we don't know about such facts. Absolutely most of us anyway.
Not 100% sure what you are trying to say here :-[
If you mean most of us don't know of anybody winning on a consistent basis, then yes of course you are right. Is this where I start to name a price or a website link for my HG ?? LOL No of course not.
O0
i want to say that:
in a history of roulette (and human kind as well) there are no well known facts that someone was able just to beat the roulette all the time long time in a row unless it was connected to biased wheels or help of Visual Ballistics or something like that.
on a consistent basis some people do win on unbiased wheels, but they don't do it for long periods of time in a row with the same "mechanical" method. They manage to switch somehow. Tactics, wheels and so on. Roulette is a negative expectation game, and that's a well known fact. That was said many times. No reason to discuss it anymore for me.
What Skakus wants to say that this is fairly possible to create a method which will win for thousands and thosands spins in a row on the same wheel or the same RNG.
I don't believe it. On the other hand Skakus proved that he can win in roulette (at least in RNG), so i would not say that he just talks to talk. There is probably something he knows which makes him think so. But again i don't believe it is possible. Even with this smart methods.
My friend at large,
You really are wrong.Soon I will open a thread to show you all
how it is impossible to lose....but no with yours rules,stop W/L,
MM,and all other things........BR it is most important and only
thing that can make you a constant winner with decent method.
The main problem here, I reckon, is that most ppl.haven't or
wouldn't go to such ventures.....they wish to become winners
with 100 BR.....which they never will.
Good Flat, would be interesting to see what u have in mind. I can't imagine something like that.
but how much is enough of bankroll?
Quote from: iggiv on Sep 03, 12:53 PM 2012
Good Flat, would be interesting to see what You have in mind. I can't imagine something like that.
but how much is enough of bankroll?
Even MOP addmited that with a decent BR and same decent method one
really can not lose.How much ????...To my views on roulette game 30.000
to easily win 200 daily.Presently am playing only airball with 3000 BR/but
my money kunas,which is about 400 euros/ aiming to win 100-130 kunas
daily/about 18 euros/--which I win every day for my daily needs.
That is the only way my friend at large.
Quote from: F_LAT_INO on Sep 03, 01:30 PM 2012
To my views on roulette game 30.000
And then they say F1 or horse racing is expensive sport?
Yeah right! lol lol lol
Cheers
Drazen
Quote from: F_LAT_INO on Sep 03, 01:30 PM 2012
Even MOP addmited that with a decent BR and same decent method one
really can not lose.How much ????...To my views on roulette game 30.000
to easily win 200 daily.Presently am playing only airball with 3000 BR/but
my money kunas,which is about 400 euros/ aiming to win 100-130 kunas
daily/about 18 euros/--which I win every day for my daily needs.
That is the only way my friend at large.
With this bankroll and this win target, it is possible to go on for years winnings.
Quote from: Ralph on Sep 03, 04:04 PM 2012
With this bankroll and this win target, it is possible to go on for years winnings.
--And how would otherwise professional players win...by stop W/L
or other nonsenses hearing from others.....Only decent BR with
decent proven method......ONLY WAY....all other is illusion.
Flat, how much do u really carry into casino at a time?
not everyone has steal balls like yours to risk so much money.
Hello everyone,
I have not had time to read all the posts.
However, I would like to say that logically and mathematically it is possible for someone to continually be successful on the roulette wheel. Call it "luck"
Logically and mathematically we can also conclude that the majority will not be.
What is the win to lose ratio?
Perhaps 60% of all dedicated players?
Quote from: iggiv on Sep 03, 05:05 PM 2012
Flat, how much do u really carry into casino at a time?
not everyone has steal balls like yours to risk so much money.
--My friend at large,
These days since only playing airball 500 euros,
other past days when I travelled and play B&M
casinos.....40-100 th.....but not any longer as can't
last nights...years
i don't get something. u say lifetime bankroll is needed 30000. Right?
now u say u carry 500 euros into a casino at a time and win every day roughly 20 euros, right?
So how come 30000 is needed? I just dont get it.
Quote from: F_LAT_INO on Sep 03, 01:30 PM 2012
Even MOP addmited that with a decent BR and same decent method one
really can not lose.How much ????...To my views on roulette game 30.000
to easily win 200 daily.Presently am playing only airball with 3000 BR/but
my money kunas,which is about 400 euros/ aiming to win 100-130 kunas
daily/about 18 euros/--which I win every day for my daily needs.
That is the only way my friend at large.
So you sit all day playing roulette for 18Euros? That seems a bit sad
No wonder they let you...lol
Hello F_LAT_INO,
You have me thinking to create a method or MM to win a certain amount with a high BR, then drop down by 75% and wait/play for a loss.
After the loss, increase units for another certain amount. Lower than our initial goal however...
etc..
This I believe is why JohnLegend has been so successful with PATTERN BREAKER's double loss stat......
Only aspect which is different is that JL increases units after a loss for a short amount of bets.
Regardless, keep rollin Flat!
Quote from: turnerfeck on Sep 03, 05:42 PM 2012
So you sit all day playing roulette for 18Euros? That seems a bit sad
No wonder they let you...LoL
don't forget that for the prices there 18 euros is not what it is in Western Europe. Or 18 bucks in the States.
Quote from: iggiv on Sep 03, 05:40 PM 2012
i don't get something. u say lifetime bankroll is needed 30000. Right?
now u say u carry 500 euros into a casino at a time and win every day roughly 20 euros, right?
So how come 30000 is needed? I just don't get it.
--Was clear as could be....I do not play any longer B&M casino couse can not last nights,
but to be a winner on constant basis one needs 30000......and for you Turnerf...
18 euro in my country quite enough for daily needs.....in other words I'm only playing
these days entertaining myself as am pensioner.Hope you got it clear now...o btw.Turner
sarcasam doesn't suits your style...and FLATINO don't lie as you suggested in other thread,
but never mind one gets to know each other better.
Flat, it is clear for u not for everybody here. I very much appreciate if u get into a little detail.
U say that your bankroll is 500 euro, u play for a win goal of 18 Euros. Which means u play for 3-4% of your bankroll and u almost every day win, right?
playing your style we can (let's suppose) make with 10000 units -- 300-400 units, is it right?
10000 is not 30000.
Quote from: iggiv on Sep 03, 06:05 PM 2012
Flat, it is clear for u not for everybody here. I very much appreciate if u get into a little detail.
U say that your bankroll is 500 euro, u play for a win goal of 18 Euros. Which means u play for 3-4% of your bankroll and u almost every day win, right?
playing your style we can (let's suppose) make with 10000 units -- 300-400 units, is it right?
10000 is not 30000.
---Correct.... about 200 un.and if you think it is impossible don't ever even try to play roulette.
btw....and not ALMOST but every day since I have turned on airball.Again repeating....its entertainment and sort of challenge....
I agree the bankroll is very important.
Playing ECs for instance, I wouldn't even think about playing unless I had 9x the win goal in my pocket.
So if you want to win 10 units you should have 90 units in your pocket.
If you lose the 90 units 3 times then you should change your method.
If you lose 90 units 3 times with 3 different methods then you should give up playing roulette.
I'm still playing so what does that tell you?
Yes, it tells you I haven't lost 9 bankrolls yet. It also tells you a big lifetime bankroll is a prerequisite to success.
Anyway, if you want to win 10 units each session then a lifetime bankroll should be at least 800 uints.
I wonder if Steve could open a new section in the forum that would take part only the members with real education/understanding about roulette and it s maths.
Those members like speed,turnerfeck,beretta and some others would be free from Gambling fallacies hit and run stupidities and it would be a productive section.
And I also agree with speed that a Mod should have a proper understanding of roulette.
For example Steve that is the owner has a correct understanding on roulette and he knows everything about GFs....that s how a Mod should be.
Iggiv isn t in the position to be a Mod.
It s like working in a factory that builds cars and the supervisor doesn t know where the wheel of a car is.
MOP i wonder if u ever learn to be a normal member of a forum tolerating other opinions. Now there are 2 of u. Waving this "flag of knowledge" and bringing nothing but troubles here.
The owner of this forum is never going to get rid of Iggiv, like him or loathe him just accept it guys. 8)
O0
Ofcource I am tolerating the GF thinking of some members.
But I can t tolerate a Mod to be deep covered into the GF....it s like working as a mecanical engeneer and never seen an engine.
MOP if not me u would have probably be kicked out of here before. U already were kicked from here under other nicks. But i can't see a sense to tolerate your b/s here anymore.
Moderating is not about roulette knowledge, this is first.
second -- u have no idea how much i know about roulette.Actually if u just
read a 1/10 of books on roulette that i did u would probably be much smarter than u r.
The problem is u can't absorb this info. U can only listen to yourself. And tell others how
much u know.
Quote from: iggiv on Sep 03, 08:29 PM 2012
Actually if u just read a 1/10 of books on roulette that i did u would probably be much smarter than u r.
Would you care to name the books in question?
Looking forward to your reply 8)
O0
Franco Scobletti, Russel Barnhart, John Patrick, Brett Morton to name a few.
This list is not full.
Quote from: iggiv on Sep 03, 08:41 PM 2012
Franco Scobletti, Russel Barnhart, John Patrick, Brett Morton to name a few.
This list is not full.
Looking at those names I get the feeling it's the other author's name's that are the important ones.
oh well not to matter :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[
O0
Well, u see, people which are proud of their "roulette education", usually did not read any. Important or not.
And gambling fallacy is not what they think it is.
link:://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler%27s_fallacy (link:://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler%27s_fallacy)
Hit-n-run is not included into "gambling fallacy". On the contrary -- hit-n-run comes from very clear logic. Realization that no method can win consistently. Realization that roulette is negative expectation game. And result of long roulette analysis with real data and different methods.
Something that those so called "roulette educated" guys don't like as they don't like books on a subject.
GF is anything that is opposite of the maths of roulette.
We are all operating within the confines of GF. The only one's outside this are those are usng advanced physics based bet selections, and flat betting those selections.
For the rest of us roulette players, playing a game with negative expectation, we are trapped in the world of GF. Make the most of it or shut up and get out.
the main gambler fallacy is "due effect". Belief that if we have many of the red now, then soon we will have lots of black. That's simple explanation of gambler's fallacy.
MOP calls gambler's fallacy anything he doesn't like :)
Actually i feel that his crusade against "gambler fallacy" has some personal roots...
Desire to draw attention...
"""Well, u see, people which are proud of their "roulette education", usually did not read any. Important or not. """
One person can read 100 books of a subject and not understand anything..this doesn't mean that he learned the subject.
""We are all operating within the confines of GF. The only one's outside this are those are usng advanced physics based bet selections, and flat betting those selections.
For the rest of us roulette players, playing a game with negative expectation, we are trapped in the world of GF. Make the most of it or shut up and get out. """
I agree but GF and GF have difference,
The worst GFs are the ones that aren t taking the maths of roulette siriously.(Hit and RUN)
The less bad GFs are the ones that don't take the randomness of roulette siriously and having the hope that a special pattern in randomness can exist....
"""Actually i feel that his crusade against "gambler fallacy" has some personal roots...
Desire to draw attention..."""
this is an other reason why iggiv shouldn t be a Mod....because he is making wrong conclusions all the time and because of this he isn t able to apply justice.
"One person can read 100 books of a subject and not understand anything..this doesn't mean that he learned the subject."
that's a nice way to admit the simple fact of ignorance on the subject. That's a typical answer of people which don't want to know reality and can see only what they wanna see. No reading even a single book on the subject, but rather teaching others :)
Quote from: F_LAT_INO on Sep 03, 05:30 PM 2012
--My friend at large,
These days since only playing airball 500 euros,
other past days when I travelled and play B&M
casinos.....40-100 the.....but not any longer as can't
last nights...years
So Flat whats a minimum bet in your online croatian casino? I understand that you
stopped playing B&M casinos. Is your main method still a sector or split method?
Quote from: Skakus on Sep 03, 09:16 PM 2012
We are all operating within the confines of GF. The only one's outside this are those are usng advanced physics based bet selections, and flat betting those selections.
For the rest of us roulette players, playing a game with negative expectation, we are trapped in the world of GF. Make the most of it or shut up and get out.
Agreed. Anyone using roulette systems, and that includes all MM can't ever get a mathematical advantage. The odds are fixed and there's nothing we can do about it. If you're not committing GF then it's some other kind of fallacy - it's unavoidable.
MOP, I don't know why you persist with roulette if the HA bothers you so much. You have abandoned advantage play because you say the opportunities don't exist any more, so you're stuck with fallacies - you know that. Beats me why you don't play some other game where the odds aren't fixed, like poker, sports betting or forex trading.
The thing is, you want to have it both ways. You attack other members for believing in fallacies but you post systems yourself which commit them. That makes you a hypocrite. ;)
One sure way to win is to put a negative bet on an on line casino, and as it is more easy to lose than win, the casino will more often subtract a negative amount from your total. >:D
Quote from: Robeenhuut on Sep 04, 12:45 AM 2012
So Flat what's a minimum bet in your online croatian casino? I understand that you
stopped playing B&M casinos. Is your main method still a sector or split method?
--It is not on line casino but automated casino with couple of airball roulette machines.
I only follow any repeaters/and many of these/and don't need a spreadsheet couse
am having display of last 20 numbers.Actually it is rather habit and entertainment
with no real serious play or any wish to win any large money....but do have a satisfaction
and enjoyment when I walk out as a winner each morning/yes few morning hours/as said
previously earning my daily needs.Years have done its natural procedure.
The thing is, you want to have it both ways. You attack other members for believing in fallacies but you post systems yourself which commit them. That makes you a hypocrite. ;)
---Lucky have just read this......as was going to say something similar...thk.Bayes
By profession MOP supposed to be instructor/fitness/--maybe he wana be here also.
Quote from: F_LAT_INO on Sep 03, 05:54 PM 2012
--Was clear as could be....I do not play any longer B&M casino couse can not last nights,
but to be a winner on constant basis one needs 30000......and for you Turnerf...
18 euro in my country quite enough for daily needs.....in other words I'm only playing
these days entertaining myself as am pensioner.Hope you got it clear now...o by the way.Turner
sarcasam doesn't suits your style...and F_LAT_INO don't lie as you suggested in other thread,
but never mind one gets to know each other better.
Sorry Flatino....sarcasm is 90% of english humour. With everyones english being so excellent I forget people here are from other countries.
This pic is for some of you guys here 8)
It just couldnt be said better!
Cheers
Drazen
"""Agreed. Anyone using roulette systems, and that includes all MM can't ever get a mathematical advantage. The odds are fixed and there's nothing we can do about it. If you're not committing GF then it's some other kind of fallacy - it's unavoidable.
MOP, I don't know why you persist with roulette if the HA bothers you so much. You have abandoned advantage play because you say the opportunities don't exist any more, so you're stuck with fallacies - you know that. Beats me why you don't play some other game where the odds aren't fixed, like poker, sports betting or forex trading."""
i agree. but Hit and Run is a mathematical fallacy and its the worst.
Randomness falacy(a bet selection may be due) is a fallacy that doesn t involve hight school simple maths.
If you accept 100% that randomness can t produce a bet selection better then the others(this is what we all are seaching) then all forums should be out of bussiness
Quote from: drazen_cro on Sep 04, 07:21 AM 2012
This pic is for some of you guys here 8)
It just couldnt be said better!
Cheers
Drazen
Absolutely Drazen
This is a great truth, but unfortunately people are not aware of it
By the way
Pay attention to the sentence below ...
it seems like this is turning into SCIENCE VS RELIGION kind of thing
Ummmm, whether you like it or not, members here have the RIGHT to politely discuss/test (etc.) methods without being picked on or harassed.
Its pretty darn rare for method guys to insult non-method members but if its the other way around? Well, we all know the answer to that. I'll help out the non-method guys....."methods suck, don't play them".
That's out of the way at least until December??
Ken
Ken,
Why December? Are you waiting for SNOW. Man !.
LOL
Tamino
Quote from: turnerfeck on Sep 02, 03:45 PM 2012
my 2 peneth....
MOP...nice post mate.
Its common sense, most of it: Beginers will listen and take it on board, but experienced roulette players will ignore common sense if it gets in the way of their belief that they can beat the casino all the time.
It doesn't matter too much if Flat_ino is winning or losing or completly lying to us all. What matters is that he enthusiastically posts up strong ideas for us to play with or reject. Just my view.
Turner
.
FLATINO...i didnt call you a liar, read again. Its a subtle thing in the English.
Well MOP and likes you.
I have a suggestion for you,rather a challenge.
Will take you on with 50 real playing sessions,over 300 hundred spins,
of your choice.
Bet you that I will win them all playing my way.
There is a chance for you to win/as much as you wish/some money.
----But I believe that even after such venture/where am sure to win/
you will be still saying maths can't allow you to beat roulette.
---BR is stronger then any maths.
There is one 100% method to carry home a million from the casino!
(bring two and lose half of it).
A large bankroll can put the loss beyond all reasonable chances of a loss, its still there, but microscopic.
The loss will if it ever comes not be small.
They stake a dollar and bring 50 or 100, need hell of a luck to win.
Ralph,
You are correct with your formula how to leave the casino with one million !
Tamino
Nothing to do with luck,and you got to try it for money live,not
on the drawing board to know true.All big professionals I have
meet throughout these years entering casinos with hundred of
th.and approaching it as a job,daily investments.Capito Ralf.
I'm no pro at gambling, but I spend a lot of time reading here. I also spend a lot of time taking bits and pieces and trying to put something together that might help me score a couple of units.
@ MOP - the 1 day I went to a land based casino. (I've only been in land based ones maybe 5 times)
I decided to get some chips and sat down to play. The method I used was CODE 4 on this forum.
I managed to rake up my + 2 units after not even 28 spins. My unit size was as high as I could afford and that paid for my fuel back home (150km) as well as a couple of drinks and food.
I was happy - BUT I decided to stick around. I got up from the table and decided to just watch a couple of more spins before I get back onto the table and push my luck or whatever you want to call it.
And guess what? In the spins I was watching - CODE 4 struck out!!! I was soooooo happy that I didn't continue to play and be greedy.
The moral of the story - had I not played "hit & run" I would have most probably hitch hiked home.
And that my friend is the truth. At the end of the day, *** and I've said this on here before ***
Who are you to judge what is right and what is wrong, who believes in what and who doesn't. You don't have the right to choose for me!
Like I said, I'm no pro, but in the end - if I believe in Santa Clause, let me!
Stop being so negative! :thumbsup:
Once again have not read all posts and complete posts yet. Just saw something interesting and wanted to comment, if you don't mind ofourse MOP :)
Quote MOP:
"people with math education(like mathematicians) when tried to explore roulette for finding a way to make money they never bothered with the Hit and Run approach.Because it was obvious to them (because they know maths) that playing 1000 spins consistently or playing 250 and 250 and 250 and 250 spins hit and run will result in the same thing."
I think the essence of JohnLegends belief in Hit and Run stems from mathematicians lack of actually playing, Hit and Run. I do mean actual live play, not tests even with recorded live spins but actually playing and only those results count.
Few test like this.......
By definition there is a difference.
Just some thoughts.
Quote from: Master_of_pockets on Sep 04, 02:18 PM 2012
"""Nothing to do with luck,and you got to try it for money live"""
This thing only a casino promoter would say it.
--MOP I'm getting sick from your deliberate comments.
mod,adm.---do something.
Hello Master_of_Pockets,
You call F_LAT_INO a Casino promoter and that's not fair , I know this gentlemen as a honest men and I have learned a lot from him.
So be carefull what you saying , he is one of the best in this forum.
When I started say 3 years ago with roulette I didn't know anything of this hole game , I followed the best players in the Casino's in Holland week after week.
I asked them several questions and also F_LAT_INO and he put me on the right way of succes after I never looked back , I don't think he will remember me , because he will get loads of post I think..
I'm never use mat. , I play always live wheel and play most of the time insite bets and use the system DEALERS SIGNATURE , what gives me good money most of the time.
And stop in time if you have no luck that day , tomorrow is another day.
Cheers
John Rotterdam
I know F_LAT_INO for quite a number of years .At that time he was known by another SN.
We exchanged many e-mails about PROVEN and RELIABLE systems. We did not discuss any socalled substandard brain f-rts .
To call this gentleman a shill for the casinos is a figment of imagination and I have grave doubts about the sanity of such a person for making such a statement
.
TAMINO
My opinion for what its worth is that MOP is a good person to have around to chop a lot of nonsense out, but... look at Flatino's picture - he's the only one on the whole forum to show his real self, I don't doubt for a second what he posts..
he wins..
i think its for 3 reasons:
1. a few options in his play
2. common sense
3. a big br
i think same applies to Wally Gator.
a single programmable winning system is just a pipedream - its not going to happen is it? the maths dictate it.
there's only winning players, not systems.
Quote from: Master_of_pockets on Sep 04, 08:49 AM 2012
My intentions are always good...
Some times i am losing control and I am being nervous when i see that the old members can t understand simple things...but thi is because i am trying to help them and they can t be helped...
And instead of them to try to think ...they are reacting badly...
My intentions are always to help having a more advanced forum....and by having members that think that hot and run is working then the forum will never advance
So, what is it that you are looking for from us? Understanding? Agreement? To stop playing?
Have you thought that maybe us "old members" understand more than you may think? Do you think you are the first person or the first time us "old members" have heard what you espouse?
As for your comments regarding me and F_LAT being casino promoters, it is disrespectful and borderline slanderous to make such allegations. We don't appreciate it at all.
I also believe that you owe F_LAT a public apology. It's one thing to disagree, it's another to make false accusations.
Quote from: monaco on Sep 04, 05:18 PM 2012
look at F_LAT_INO's picture - he's the only one on the whole forum to show his real self,
i think same applies to Wally Gator.
Rubbish.....thats not Wally Gators real self picture......
Quote from: turnerfeck on Sep 04, 05:32 PM 2012
nonsense.....that's not Wally Gators real self picture......
:)
yes it is, I've met him ;D (not really) but seems to be a v nice gator all things considered.
The photos stopped when the camera lens kept breaking ..... about 35 years ago .......
Quote from: F_LAT_INO on Sep 04, 03:18 PM 2012
--MOP I'm getting sick from your deliberate comments.
mod,adm.---do something.
First off, dont TELL ME to do something. I deleted a couple of his posts. YES, I think the guy is stirring the pot, trying to egg others into arguing with him. When a person gets banned and comes back under a different user name, they *NEVER* post differently. Would I ban the guy (again)? Yes, but thats more of a decision by Steve.
@MOP >> We understand your OPINION, got it, loud and clear. Could you STOP please with the insults? That would be cool.
Ken
Hello Monaco,
You wrote.....look at F_LAT_INO's picture - he's the only one on the whole forum to show his real self.
Well I have to make a little correction here , there is not 1 but 2 who show there real self here on the forum , the second one is me , I use several pictures of myself and the most are made in a dutch casino.
Cheers
John Rotterdam
Hi John - my apologies.. I thought that was a young Ronnie Lane (The Small Faces)
(link:://ts2.mm.bing.net/images/thumbnail.aspx?q=4635275438654937&id=ce421fc121efcb55832c261fde1ad057)
I didn't mean so much about the picture, more than Flat seems an open person, like Wally Gator, Mr J.. these are people i really dont doubt are winning on a consistent basis..
we can all benefit from learning from them, BUT>>> MOP teaches us to cut out a lot of BS too.. an uncritical forum is not what we need either..
Sorry, but I also use a picture of my real self.
:)
Hey, did any of you see flat's post on VLS a couple of days ago accusing Bayes & superman of being online rng casino agents?
Well now the shoe's on the other foot and he's jumping up and down like a baby! Ha! It's laughable. ;D
hey Skakus, I'm not one to judge, but your photographer maybe didn't catch your best side :D
Quote from: Skakus on Sep 04, 06:16 PM 2012
Hey, did any of you see flat's post on VLS a couple of days ago accusing Bayes & superman of being online rng casino agents?
Skakus can u post link?
Flatino once asked me for some illegal way to win roulette, i knew that I could not trust him and i refused.
(somebody who can win with legal way he dont need ilegal way)
I belive it's possible that he actually has his own casino or is somehow connected to casino.
I see that there are some newcomers who believe him i advises them to believe only evidence, not words.
Quote from: monaco on Sep 04, 06:23 PM 2012
hey Skakus, I'm not one to judge, but your photographer maybe didn't catch your best side :D
hey monaco, sorry mate, I had the wrong picture uploaded. All fixed now! :thumbsup:
The old Skakus seemed less scary.. :o
@ skakus and speed
Yeah we know both of you like to kindle the fire. Your statements are just childish.
Man is 73, give him a break...
Regards
Drazen
I know you find it hard to believe, but this really is my cat!
Quote from: drazen_cro on Sep 04, 07:22 PM 2012
@ skakus and speed
Yeah we know both of you like to kindle the fire. Your statements are just childish.
Man is 73, give him a break...
Regards
Drazen
What is childish about pointing out that someone is complaining about being treated exactly the same way they have treated others?
Some events are DUE to happen. Black after a streak of Reds is more certain than death.
::)
Ibboba is a gambler for long time. He does not need to prove anything.
Quote from: Skakus on Sep 04, 06:16 PM 2012
Sorry, but I also use a picture of my real self.
:)
Hey, did any of you see flat's post on VLS a couple of days ago accusing Bayes & superman of being online rng casino agents?
Well now the shoe's on the other foot and he's jumping up and down like a baby! Ha! It's laughable. ;D
--I think you have lost your tyres somewhere on the road and woke up.
--When somebody forces RNG numbers instead of real roulette numbers
repeatedly saying how they are easier to beat then real numbers,that
those are random while real not.....What should one suppose to think
about that.....thats my thoughs about the matter based on constant
observance....couple years same story.....and I bet JL and Skakus will
beat RNG numbers to prove theirs point....If it wasn't sad it would be
ridiculous.
Quote from: speed on Sep 04, 06:51 PM 2012
Skakus can you post link?
F_LAT_INO once asked me for some illegal way to win roulette, i knew that I could not trust him and i refused.
(somebody who can win with legal way he don't need ilegal way)
I belive it's possible that he actually has his own casino or is somehow connected to casino.
I see that there are some newcomers who believe him i advises them to believe only evidence, not words.
[/quot
---You talking science fiction....
Quote from: F_LAT_INO on Sep 05, 04:35 AM 2012
--I think you have lost your tyres somewhere on the road and woke up.
--When somebody forces RNG numbers instead of real roulette numbers
repeatedly saying how they are easier to beat then real numbers,that
those are random while real not.....What should one suppose to think
about that.....that's my thoughs about the matter based on constant
observance....couple years same story.....and I bet JL and Skakus will
beat RNG numbers to prove theirs point....If it wasn't sad it would be
ridiculous.
You know, even though I test and play around with rng, like you I only ever put real money down on real wheels. That could change one day though because there is little or no difference in the results.
QuoteThat could change one day though because there is little or no difference in the results
:ooh:
---You talking science fiction....
Ok, mcmonaco. :)
Quote from: albertojonas on Sep 04, 08:55 PM 2012
Some events are DUE to happen. Black after a streak of Reds is more certain than death.
::)
Getting back on topic - I'll second that. I thought that was THE gamblers fallacy - that something is due based on past results. I have to say that the truth as I see it is the original 'fallacy' is not fallacy at all. Based on law of large numbers the gamblers belief that something is due is entirely correct. the problem is not knowing when it is due.
As far as testing for thousands of spins etc. Should this be a 'sub-fallacy' or fallacy no 23b or something like that? I'm sure there's prob quite a few more (debatedly) miss-held beliefs....?
Woods
The numbers will come back, the numbers never ending. All numbers are due.
Quote from: woods101 on Sep 05, 10:30 AM 2012
Getting back on topic - I'll second that. I thought that was THE gamblers fallacy - that something is due based on past results. I have to say that the truth as I see it is the original 'fallacy' is not fallacy at all. Based on law of large numbers the gamblers belief that something is due is entirely correct. the problem is not knowing when it is due.
As far as testing for thousands of spins etc. Should this be a 'sub-fallacy' or fallacy no 23b or something like that? I'm sure there's prob quite a few more (debatedly) miss-held beliefs....?
Woods
It sure wont hurt if you do flat betting. Progression is a different story then. I suggest to use Marigny theories and after a heavy imbalance go for it with a positive progression. Not much to risk but lots to gain ;D
Quote from: woods101 on Sep 05, 10:30 AM 2012
Getting back on topic - I'll second that. I thought that was THE gamblers fallacy - that something is due based on past results. I have to say that the truth as I see it is the original 'fallacy' is not fallacy at all. Based on law of large numbers the gamblers belief that something is due is entirely correct. the problem is not knowing when it is due.
As far as testing for thousands of spins etc. Should this be a 'sub-fallacy' or fallacy no 23b or something like that? I'm sure there's prob quite a few more (debatedly) miss-held beliefs....?
Woods
''Based on law of large numbers the gamblers belief that something is due is entirely correct. the problem is not knowing when it is due.''
Hello again woods101, good to see ya. I agree with your thoughts, except that I would say that the casinos know when something is due, this is why they have made the max bets as is. Let me have a 10 step progression for under $200 on 2 dozens, wouldn't be funny :)
Sidenotes:
1)Do I think that there are casino promoters on the forum pushing bogus methods? perhaps, if we look at all the scam systems being solid it wouldn't surprise me. Only thing is that they do not know if you are going to play their system at their casino, why bother posting. I would expect them do debunk a winning method though.
2) Concerning creating methods to win in roulette, this is the only way we can get anywhere and it should be fun :) I believe there are quite a few players who do well.
3) In order for us to be successful we need to just focus on reviewing methods, pointing out their strengths and weaknesses (briefly) and helping to improve them if need be. If players do not think we can win in roulette then it is pointless for them to stay on the forum. Perhaps they are just trying to help (not make us lose money) which is very kind.
4) The threads I enjoy the most are ones which have players posting their live results, even RNG is great. If they can do it there is a chance I can to.
Looking forward to some good threads/methods and posts.
AMK
Hey AMK,
1) Good to see ya likewise. I agree - no table limit = holy grail on a marty gale without fail!
2) Understanding chance would be understanding universe. Like religion - many strands. Like chess illustrates life love and death I think roulette displays chance enigma of the universe as example every min and a half. Not all will ever agree.....er...confucius say.
3) I personally don't think casinos need to try and get more money off you having watched a variety of punters in a casino. Not many seem to bet with any rationality. Personally I don't trust rng but hey- one mans belief is another mans fallacy.
Woods
Woods
Gambler fallacy is just that a fallacy, or is it?
I was testing gambler's fallacy a few days ago with the "dues" using a skip and run technique. I was hitting numbers one after another. I was amazed. But, reality sunk in as I was fooled by my own fallacies. I was using a double zero tracking system and playing with single zero results, but I was winning. I guess if it's not broken, don't fix it.
Just a fool and his experience.
Kimo Li
Quote from: Kimo Li on Sep 07, 12:45 AM 2012
Gambler fallacy is just that a fallacy, or is it?
I was testing gambler's fallacy a few days ago with the "dues" using a skip and run technique. I was hitting numbers one after another. I was amazed. But, reality sunk in as I was fooled by my own fallacies. I was using a double zero tracking system and playing with single zero results, but I was winning. I guess if it's not broken, don't fix it.
Just a fool and his experience.
Kimo Li
This technique is to skip the losing bet and bet the winnings? It works! 8)
Even the "experts" can't agree what the fallacy actually is. On Wikipedia it says:
Quoteis the belief that if deviations from expected behaviour are observed in repeated independent (link:://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_independence) trials of some random process (link:://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_process), future deviations in the opposite direction are then more likely.
And on the "Fallacy Files":
QuoteA fair gambling device has produced a "run". Therefore, on the next trial of the device, it is less likely than chance to continue the run.
The GF is just a consequence of independent trials and says that given 10 reds in a row, the next outcome is just as likely to be red as black. Well D'uh!
However, independent trials follow distributions and exhibit regular patterns as defined by the laws of probability, which means to that extent they're not independent. GF is about the next spin, not the next sequence of spins. In fact, probability says that given a strong deviation over a certain sequence, the following sequence is more likely to be closer to the average.
Nothing is guaranteed, but past spins do indicate future spins, and that's not a contradiction of GF.
And I disagree with MOP that hit & run is the worst fallacy. In fact it's relatively harmless.
Kimo Li,how do you play this system and what are DUES ?
Cheers.
Dino.
I agree with bayes. Simply hit and run does no warm to anyone... It also does no good at all...
However... if you know when to hit and when to run... that would be another story.
Run before you lost focus! Do not play too tired or drunk! There are reasons for stop!
Quote from: vladir on Sep 07, 07:17 AM 2012
I agree with bayes. Simply hit and run does no warm to anyone... It also does no good at all...
However... if you know when to hit and when to run... that would be another story.
--Hit at 4am when they counting money and run as fast as you can before police hit......LOL
I just stop playing when I feel it is time for me to exit, with a profit or loss I am happy with, is that hit and run?
I have a rough guide what I would like to make and a definate amount I am prepared to lose in a single session.
Of course I would prefer not to have the loss but that goes with the game.
Hit at 4am when they counting money and run as fast as you can before police hit...--F_lat_Ino
Love your sense of humor. Makes it easy to pick out the winning gamblers on here :D
Concerning creating methods to win in roulette, this is the only way we can get anywhere and it should be fun (link:://rouletteforum.cc/Smileys/default/smiley.gif) I believe there are quite a few players who do well.--AMK
For me making systems is quite grueling and comes with the mindset "as if your family depends on your systems". Not that you would ever gamble for your livelyhood--you never know.
Quote from: Kimo Li on Sep 07, 12:45 AM 2012
Gambler fallacy is just that a fallacy, or is it?
I was testing gambler's fallacy a few days ago with the "dues" using a skip and run technique. I was hitting numbers one after another. I was amazed. But, reality sunk in as I was fooled by my own fallacies. I was using a double zero tracking system and playing with single zero results, but I was winning. I guess if it's not broken, don't fix it.
Just a fool and his experience.
Kimo Li
Hello Kimo! I dont doubt of it, you have beat up roulette once and for all! And its amazing! =) There is no question about that.
Regards Timo
***Nothing is guaranteed, but past spins do indicate future spins, and that's not a contradiction of GF.***
Well, there's some Voodoo for ya!
Sam
Quote from: Bayes on Sep 07, 04:02 AM 2012
Nothing is guaranteed, but past spins do indicate future spins, and that's not a contradiction of GF.
And I disagree with MOP that hit & run is the worst fallacy. In fact it's relatively harmless.
Quote from: TwoCatSam on Sep 07, 09:10 PM 2012
***Nothing is guaranteed, but past spins do indicate future spins, and that's not a contradiction of GF.***
Well, there's some Voodoo for ya!
Sam
Quite the statement there 2Cats !!! Care to expand on what you mean please?
O0
Quote from: TwoCatSam on Sep 07, 09:10 PM 2012
***Nothing is guaranteed, but past spins do indicate future spins, and that's not a contradiction of GF.***
Well, there's some Voodoo for ya!
Sam
Hello,
I'm very pleased to read this ....you are right 2.C.S.
Your luck in Roulette is fixed in the past hits , otherwise it would be impossible to play the system Dealers Signature.
Have a nice weekend
Cheers
John Rotterdam
One thing is out of doubt, the past spins affect the bankroll size.
Quote from: TwoCatSam on Sep 07, 09:10 PM 2012
Well, there's some Voodoo for ya!
Sam, why is it voodoo?
What I said was:
Quoteindependent trials follow distributions and exhibit regular patterns as defined by the laws of probability, which means to that extent they're not independent
Of course the odds don't change in the way that they do in Blackjack when cards are removed from the deck, that's not what I meant.
An example of voodoo is hit & run - expecting to miss the bad sequences by keeping sessions short. No-one can give a plausible reason why that should work, but there are mathematically sound reasons why using past spins as a guide can help with making bets. If you understand that outcomes are constrained by the laws of probability, this is obvious. Anyone who disagrees is just signing up to "scientific" dogma. >:D
I've proved it to myself many times. Sometimes I deliberately bet randomly, just to see if I'm kidding myself about bet selections - do they really make a difference? What always happens is that I get into trouble pretty quickly, it then becomes a matter of pure money management to try to recover losses. However, when I'm not betting "cold", but use past spins and probability in order to select bets, it's a MUCH easier ride. It's hard work because I don't use a rigid system, only probability and statistics applied to past spins. To be honest, I find it strange that people are looking for a simple, mechanical system which will let them play like a robot - boring! ;D
Math-boys* say "nothing is due at roulette".
They also say "you will be a loser in the long run". But this second claim is based on the assumption that something is due and that will happen given enough time. If you talk about the "long run", you effectively admit something is due. Either you say "in the long run Reds will catch with Blacks" or "in the long run you will loser", makes no difference. Both statements require the belief that something is due and given enough time it will occur.
________
*math-boys = persons that dismiss any creative thinking about roulette, on the basis that "no system can win, because the payout is not fair" (referring to the 2,7% house edge).
Some hope that GF is "You will be a loser in the long run" ;D
Quote from: Robeenhuut on Sep 08, 03:29 AM 2012
Math-boys* say "nothing is due at roulette".
They also say "you will be a loser in the long run". But this second claim is based on the assumption that something is due and that will happen given enough time. If you talk about the "long run", you effectively admit something is due. Either you say "in the long run Reds will catch with Blacks" or "in the long run you will loser", makes no difference. Both statements require the belief that something is due and given enough time it will occur.
________
*math-boys = persons that dismiss any creative thinking about roulette, on the basis that "no system can win, because the payout is not fair" (referring to the 2,7% house edge).
Some hope that GF is "You will be a loser in the long run" ;D
I found this statement at roulette30. And it is easy to understand every number will show in the long run. We have some problem to know when. In that sense it is due, but statistical trials say they even out.
The even out is problematic, it can take millions of spins to a cross, and still they even out by % but not numbers of occurense. 45/55 is not strange at 100 runs, but 450000/500000 is.
At a longer run they tight up i % count but not sure by number count.
Yes thats correct.
I've made an excel tracker for % on d/c an ec's.
They never even out, always around 31->33% for d/c and 41->43% for ec's
Stephan
Quote from: Ralph on Sep 08, 03:37 AM 2012
I found this statement at roulette30. And it is easy to understand every number will show in the long run. We have some problem to know when. In that sense it is due, but statistical trials say they even out.
The even out is problematic, it can take millions of spins to a cross, and still they even out by % but not numbers of occurense. 45/55 is not strange at 100 runs, but 450000/500000 is.
At a longer run they tight up i % count but not sure by number count.
The author meant rather that it is impossible to know for sure that a player will always lose in the long run meaning that even when its proven that no system can survive gazilions number of spins its possible to be in profit playing relatively large number of separate sessions.
For me GF would mean that its possible to have a bet selection thats better than others by looking at past spins and even if spins are not independent (Marigny theories) then its possible to construct a winning strategy based on this fact without exceeding table limits.
Mathematical the house brings in around 2.7% of the betting turnover, its easy to show. Its from large number of bets, and that's even out to the HE. A table can even have a loss some days.
That's not so as many calculate, it takes 2.7% from every bet. The bet is losing or winning at 100%.
The same goes for sessions and players, the are not the large number in the sense as the all casino bets. If the wheel do not have memory, it will not know who is winning, and bookkeeping to distribute the HE even among sessions and players at a even rate in short or longer time.
I do not exactly know how many bets needed to for sure reach the negative EV. That's still something expected, the expected it not allways the outcome.
Quote from: Robeenhuut on Sep 08, 03:29 AM 2012
Math-boys* say "nothing is due at roulette".
They also say "you will be a loser in the long run". But this second claim is based on the assumption that something is due and that will happen given enough time. If you talk about the "long run", you effectively admit something is due. Either you say "in the long run Reds will catch with Blacks" or "in the long run you will loser", makes no difference. Both statements require the belief that something is due and given enough time it will occur.
There's a bit of sophistry here because "due" is used in two different senses. The GF sense of "due" is that the outcome is expected after a definite number of spins (usually no longer than the length of your progression). You may not know exactly how many, but at least you'll know when the expected event has arrived. ;D But "due" in the sense of "being a loser in the long run" isn't expecting any particular event - how do you know when you're a loser? there is no event which, once past, defines you as a loser. Being a loser in the long run just means that over time, the house edge will erode your bankroll, so it's more of a statement about the effects of the house edge.
In my experience, the way that the "math boys" operate is to say that anything can happen, they say things like "you could get 100 reds in a row", or "there are no rare events, all events are equally rare". The implication is that no matter what you try, it's a waste of time and effort because you'll be destroyed by the randomness, and if the randomness doesn't get you, over time the HA will.
This is nonsense and shows a complete lack of understanding of probability and statistics. It can't be the case that all events are equally rare, because "rare" is a relative term: rare compared to what? If all events were rare, the entire field of inferential statistics would be useless; you wouldn't be able to determine whether an event was random or followed some regular pattern or law, and advantage play would be impossible, even in principle.
Quote from: Bayes on Sep 08, 03:06 AM 2012
To be honest, I find it strange that people are looking for a simple, mechanical system which will let them play like a robot - boring! ;D
I said similar in my Brett Morton post
It just reminds me of the way i used to approach roulette like i had found some magic formula that works for all roulette scenarios.
I've done far better once i left the magic world of turbogenius roulette systems to acting on very recent information.
Like in chess, pushing a pawn or controlling the centre may be fundamentally correct actions....but not in the particular position you see before you. I am starting to realise the similarities between chess and roulette
The current position you see on the maque denotes how you play.
Static systems like this don't let you afapt to the changing position
Hope that explains where i am at
Turner
by the way i have never said that using hit-n-run is a guarantee to win with any method. What i wanted to say is that certain methods may perform better with it. The reason for this is as i said already. Unless it is a sophisticated advantage play, any method will usually sink with roulette after playing it for long time. That's a nature of a game with negative expectation. Actually absolutely most people with knowledge and experience admit it. So don't expect to win always, try to win from time to time, and if You can-- then it is good enough. It has nothing to do with statistics or "high school math". Those who say that a winning non-advantage-play method is supposed to win thousands and thousands and thousands spins in a row (and if it can't then it can't win at all) -- to say a least -- have a bit unrealistic expectations. "I want it all and i want it now" sounds good, but in Queen's song only, not in the game of roulette.
and someone said "u have to know when to hit and when to run", sure, u have to chose your entrance and exit points carefully, otherwise it does not make sense. Otherwise it is just random betting and losing by house edge.
Quote from: iggiv on Sep 08, 11:00 AM 2012
by the way i have never said that using hit-n-run is a guarantee to win with any method. What i wanted to say is that certain methods may perform better with it. The reason for this is as i said already. Unless it is a sophisticated advantage play, any method will usually sink with roulette after playing it for long time. That's a nature of a game with negative expectation. Actually absolutely most people with knowledge and experience admit it. So don't expect to win always, try to win from time to time, and if You can-- then it is good enough. It has nothing to do with statistics or "high school math". Those who say that a winning non-advantage-play method is supposed to win thousands and thousands and thousands spins in a row (and if it can't then it can't win at all) -- to say a least -- have a bit unrealistic expectations. "I want it all and i want it now" sounds good, but in Queen's song only, not in the game of roulette.
I agree but if you play just one game involving 60 step progression can we still call it hit n' run ;D
call whatever u like it Rob. i won't play this kind of game. I am not setting terms here. I am just giving my opinion how it makes sense to play. I don't believe in progressions. And if someone uses them they would better be short. Some say "golden progression" with regression helps. But it is short as well.
Quote from: Robeenhuut on Sep 08, 11:12 AM 2012
I agree but if you play just one game involving 60 step progression can we still call it hit n' run ;D
OK
Are we saying the numbers produced by the wheel must--must--conform to statistics? Either they do or don't.
Let's say they do and use an exaggerample. We just had 100 reds hit in a row. At some point blacks must catch up. No?
Assuming all of the above is correct________________________ 8)
What force in the universe makes black more likely to hit? What force in the universe says red has hit too many times and black must catch up?
R.D. Ellison called it "statistical pressure" and hinted that some force in the universe causes this equalization. And how does it accomplish this goal? Shrink red pockets?
Samster
there are only LONG TERM statistics that matter like that, not short term. You can't use short term statistics and expect to win. It is gonna be fallacy. Classical fallacy. That's why roulette is so hard to beat. Say in the last 40 spins we had 30 blacks (that's more realistic than 100 blacks in a row scenario). We can't bet that that very soon we will see more reds. But say within last 10000 spins it is likely that roughly 47% of them will be red and 47% black. It can be 46, 45 or 48%, but it is gonna be pretty close to 47%. This is for single zero roulette of course.
So this CAN'T be used for gambling. And casinos know this very well.
and if we take millions of spins then these numbers would be even more close to 47.3%. These are long term statistics.
THIS stuff has been said over and over again:
after those 30 reds the thing one can do is to try and catch the trend of correction. Once Blacks start to show up clearly, try and catch that correction. This is not a Fallacy.
Cheers
AL
How about the graphic bellow for a Fallacy???
u can try to catch any trend yes. The fallacy is not about trends. It is about "high probability" of
something that DID NOT SHOW up. Trend is something else.
There is a law of large numbers. Even if every single event should be much different in reasons for happen like a traffic accident of deadly outcome, the numbers are ruffly the same from one year to an other. If the number changes, something more than trivial has happen, in many areas like car construction, alcohol behaviour, or road construction, or legal reforming.
Every insurance company use this. There are en expected number of outcomes, which are predictable. Even rare events as lethal lighten event, is in my contry not more than 1-3 a year and three is rare, as zero is.
Quote from: TwoCatSam on Sep 08, 08:44 PM 2012
OK
Are we saying the numbers produced by the wheel must--must--conform to statistics? Either they do or don't.
Yes, they must (given an unbiased wheel).
Let's say they do and use an exaggerample. We just had 100 reds hit in a row. At some point blacks must catch up. No?
Blacks have to catch up insofar as they must conform to statistics, but it doesn't mean that they have to catch up or equalize in the short term, that's GF. That doesn't mean that you can't use past spins and statistics to good effect though, because a sequence of spins doesn't just consist of R/B, but other ratios, such as the number of streaks vs chops, the number of series of 2 vs higher series etc. There are averages within averages, and tracking these and knowing the statistics and relations between them is more effective than just betting that black will catch up.
Assuming all of the above is correct________________________ 8)
What force in the universe makes black more likely to hit? What force in the universe says red has hit too many times and black must catch up?
Knowing the forces won't help you, it's enough to know that it happens and that you can rely on it.
R.D. Ellison called it "statistical pressure" and hinted that some force in the universe causes this equalization. And how does it accomplish this goal? Shrink red pockets?
Equalization occurs because of symmetry in the device. The tendency is for the outcomes to equalize because there's no reason for them not to.
Samster
Quote from: iggiv on Sep 08, 09:21 PM 2012
there are only LONG TERM statistics that matter like that, not short term. You can't use short term statistics and expect to win. It is gonna be fallacy. Classical fallacy. That's why roulette is so hard to beat. Say in the last 40 spins we had 30 blacks (that's more realistic than 100 blacks in a row scenario). We can't bet that that very soon we will see more reds.
You don't need to take millions of spins in order to see an approximate balance. It's enough to get a balance within certain boundaries or deviations in order to get an advantage. Take your example of 30 blacks in the last 40 spins, which is a STD of a little over 3. According to probability, the next 40 spins will generate approximate 20 reds, and in fact in ANY sequence of 40 spins this is the most likely event. 10 reds in 40 spins is a rare event, but it doesn't mean that the next 40 spins will produce 30 reds and 10 blacks, giving a balance over the 80 spins of 40 reds and 40 blacks, that's GF.
The point of using a deviation as a trigger is that by definition, rare events don't occur very often, and a deviation over a longer sequence is rarer than a deviation over a shorter sequence, so you can reasonably expect that the deviation will not be so severe (in the same direction) as it was on the first event. Suppose that in the 2nd set of 40 spins, the deviation continued, and again you only got 10 reds. The STD is now about 4.4 over the past 80 spins. You can now be even more confident that the NEXT sample of 40 spins will produce more than 10 reds. If it didn't the STD over the last 120 spins would be 5.5, (30 reds in the last 120 spins), which is practically unheard of.
Note that not only is a strong deviation unlikely to be repeated in successive samples, but a strong deviation is more likely to occur following an AVERAGE sample, which is just logical, if you think about it. This means that, more often than not, you're better off looking at past spins instead of just betting randomly, ie; past spins can indicate (but not cause) future spins.
Quote from: turnerfeck on Sep 08, 06:57 AM 2012
Like in chess, pushing a pawn or controlling the centre may be fundamentally correct actions....but not in the particular position you see before you.
Exactly. Simple mechanical systems don't work because they rely on the outcomes conforming to a certain pattern, but the nature of random is to change continuously, so these kinds of systems are at the mercy of every pattern which doesn't match that which the system is designed to beat.
Quote from: iggiv on Sep 08, 10:40 PM 2012
You can try to catch any trend yes. The fallacy is not about trends. It is about "high probability" of
something that DID NOT SHOW up. Trend is something else.
The way I see it is that trends and sleepers are two sides of the same coin. Both are deviations. Suppose the STD of a certain trend is 0, +3.00, or -3.00, which would you choose as your trigger for starting to bet on the trend (when it emerges)?
Quote from: Bayes on Sep 09, 06:24 AM 2012
The way I see it is that trends and sleepers are two sides of the same coin. Both are deviations. Suppose the STD of a certain trend is 0, +3.00, or -3.00, which would you choose as your trigger for starting to bet on the trend (when it emerges)?
...may consider that the end of the trend is when sleepers correct.
Quote from: Bayes on Sep 09, 06:24 AM 2012
The way I see it is that trends and sleepers are two sides of the same coin. Both are deviations. Suppose the STD of a certain trend is 0, +3.00, or -3.00, which would you choose as your trigger for starting to bet on the trend (when it emerges)?
well, classical Gambler Fallacy (like Wikipedia tells us) is about expecting something that DID NOT SHOW UP. Something about the "balance". Trend is something different.
about other fallacies -- these are already speculations. It is easy to call this or that "a gambler fallacy". But i think we should use well known definitions, which are recognized world-wide.
I remember myself some time ago -- anything i did not agree with-- i called "a gambler fallacy".
But that's WRONG. After reading some material on the subject i realized it. There is only one well-known Gambler Fallacy.
An other fallacy is the wheel is rigged, because you lose.
And you are clever if you win.
Unfortunately capitalizing on "due" swings in SD (i dont like STD abbr. ;D ) is far from a sure bet due to a fact that its impossible to predict when its going to happen and for how long. But i would take it anyway. If i could get few heavily imbalanced events at the same time i would take my chances with a positive progressions on them.
If a trend is more likely to come, a positive progression is both cheaper and more profitable!
But it is to know its due.
Quote from: Ralph on Sep 09, 10:50 AM 2012
An other fallacy is the wheel is rigged, because you lose.
And you are clever if you win.
this is not about classical fallacy already. Wheel could be basically rigged and u may be clever if u win. Though in most cases it is like u say --wrong conclusions. But again -- this is not a well-known GAMBLER FALLACY. Another way of classical Gambler Fallacy (but not in gambling) for example is to expect a son if your wife gave birth to 4 daughters already.
The 5:th trials to get a son, will have higher probability then the four before, the four before has no chance at all, it we exclude modern medical technology and social values.
well, i am not gonna argue, it is all in wikipedia
link:://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler%27s_fallacy#Childbirth (link:://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler%27s_fallacy#Childbirth)
Quote from: Robeenhuut on Sep 09, 10:52 AM 2012
If i could get few heavily imbalanced events at the same time i would take my chances with a positive progressions on them.
Bravo Robeenhuut!!! You're the first one on this forum who connected deviation and positive progression. :thumbsup:
This is the same way I play roulette for a long time, i have some modification but base is the same , so far proved to be long term winner, tested in RX on milions spins. Who does not believe it should try.
speed
Quote from: iggiv on Sep 09, 11:39 AM 2012
well, i am not gonna argue, it is all in wikipedia
link:://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler%27s_fallacy#Childbirth (link:://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler%27s_fallacy#Childbirth)
Iggiv the girls are allready born, so they have lower probabillity to be boys, than the not yet born.
If you can argue against gamblers fallacy and the relevance of past results then would you accept that the world you live in absolutely relies on it?
If you've ever taken any form of conventional medicine then you are reliant on GF. All modern drugs go through a process of clinical testing or to use the relevant term - clinical 'trials'. We all know that this involves tests of a certain number on a certain amount of individuals/ animals etc. Based on a small yet representative number of trials a product is deemed to be either effective/ non effective. Dangerous / non dangerous. If a thousand tests (hypothetical number) on individuals deem a product to be safe, then past results are relied on as an indication of future results i.e. it is accepted that the number of tests (whatever that number is) is representative of the population as a whole and therefore the product is safe to pass. There will always be exceptions to the rule hence 'always read the label' etc but the 'smaller' test is accepted as representative of the bigger population.
Depending on the product and the risk, the amount of trials may be smaller or larger. This is irrelevant. What is worth noting though, is a mathematician who applies the standard view of probability would argue that a test that shows side effects in 100/1000 people is not indicative at all. Each test is independent. This is not how a trials company would view those tests. A 'maths boy' would argue that it is entirely feasible that you could have 50 people in a row out of the next 100 suffer adverse side effects, just like it's possible to have 100 reds in a row. Is it probable? No. A drugs company would also think so. So would an insurance company. So would a loan company. So would a sales company. So would most companies. In fact would it not be a fair statement to say that all market research is obtaining past results in order to make a prediction on future results....within markets that appear random?
Are the workings of the entire modern, western civilization based upon the fallacy that past results have a bearing on future results?
If so then where does it leave this thread heading next...? :D
Woods
Quote from: iggiv on Sep 09, 11:39 AM 2012
well, i am not gonna argue, it is all in wikipedia
link:://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler%27s_fallacy#Childbirth (link:://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler%27s_fallacy#Childbirth)
Wikipedia should never be relied upon. For anything. Fact.
Woods, that's cool, but the gambling book authors all say roughly the same.
I think this is a well known thing.
Bayes
To quote you and me:
"What force in the universe makes black more likely to hit? What force in the universe says red has hit too many times and black must catch up?
Knowing the forces won't help you, it's enough to know that it happens and that you can rely on it."
It would seem you are admitting there is some "force" in the universe that causes this phenomenon we might call "equalization". Baby girls and trends and all that aside, what could this force be?
I would pose this question: If red hits can we say black is due to hit on the next spin? No, we cannot. Why then, if too many reds have hit, can we believe that black will--at some distant time--equalize with red? How could we be sure the wheel would not produce another abundance of reds?
I would pose another question: If this wheel who had produced too many reds was shut down for a week, would it still try to equalize once it was re-started? If so, why? If not, why not? How long a memory does the wheel have?
All in all, I guess it really doesn't matter as there is no way to capitalize on it anyway. But for me, it's interesting to dwell on it.
Sam
iggiv
Say in the last 40 spins we had 30 blacks (that's more realistic than 100 blacks in a row scenario)
I said it was an "exaggerample".....an exaggerated example! I don't literally mean 100 in a row. Sometimes--for thought experiments--I go to extremes. It can be very helpful.
Or not.......
Sam
OK OK. Sorry i did not mean anything against u. I just made an example which looks more like what i could encounter in real life.
If it is a force it may be entropy, an even out in the long long run, with all kinds of outcomes in every length will be the least order.
Not trying to be a jerk, but I guess I am.......................
I just love to ask unanswerable questions. Always have.
Just left Savannah, Georgia. Duke University--which is not known to blow smoke--has determined the city is full of ghosts!
Here's a question: If a soldier appears as a ghost, why is he dressed? Are his clothes ghosts, too?
Why are ghosts never naked? Is it because that would offend our sense of decency? Why would a ghost care?
I'll shut up for a while...........
Sam
I only know of 1 naked ghost and its Casper the friendly ghost :smile:
And theres nothing wrong to see about him that would offend our sense of decency.
You can't see his dingus!!
Quote from: woods101 on Sep 09, 07:39 PM 2012
Are the workings of the entire modern, western civilization based upon the fallacy that past results have a bearing on future results?
woods, this is an old problem in philosophy called the 'problem of induction'. As you don't trust Wikipedia, see this in the encyclopedia Brittanica (link:://:.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1311323/problem-of-induction).
Sam, if you like unanswerable questions, try this one:
What happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object? >:D
Quote from: TwoCatSam on Sep 10, 07:26 AM 2012
Not trying to be a jerk, but I guess I am.......................
I just love to ask unanswerable questions. Always have.
Just left Savannah, Georgia. Duke University--which is not known to blow smoke--has determined the city is full of ghosts!
Here's a question: If a soldier appears as a ghost, why is he dressed? Are his clothes ghosts, too?
Why are ghosts never naked? Is it because that would offend our sense of decency? Why would a ghost care?
I'll shut up for a while...........
Sam
I can feel "does the fridge light go out when you shut the door" about to rear its ugly head
Quote from: TwoCatSam on Sep 09, 11:09 PM 2012
I would pose another question: If this wheel who had produced too many reds was shut down for a week, would it still try to equalize once it was re-started? If so, why? If not, why not? How long a memory does the wheel have?
Yes, that does seem to happen. This is the idea of 'personal permanence', and is another reason why hit & run, stop losses, etc are fallacies. If you have a sequence of only 30 reds in 100 spins, you could leave the casino and come back the next month to play another 100 spins on a DIFFERENT wheel, and you'll get the same results as if you'd stayed the previous month to play the 2nd 100 spins straight after the 1st 100 (and on the same wheel). That's what independent trials means, but because 30 reds in 100 is rare, it's less likely to come up again straight away, no matter when or where you play those next 100 spins. No need to invoke any voodoo. ;D
Quote from: turnerfeck on Sep 10, 08:57 AM 2012
I can feel "does the fridge light go out when you shut the door" about to rear its ugly head
Or, 'if a tree falls in the woods and there's no-one there to hear it, does it still make a sound?'
I would say yes, because sound is a wave travelling through space, which happens whether anyone is there or not.
Promise I'll shut up soon.............
Having worked on refrigerators for 30+ years I can say that there are times when the switch sticks closed and the light does stay on. The customer complaint is the fridge is warm but the freezer is fine. How to test? Open the door and touch the bulb. Working properly, it will never be hot. When the switch is stuck, it will burn you.
As to the tree, it does not produce sound. Sound is defined as vibrations hitting an ear drum--roughly. It produces a noise if no creature on earth hears it.
Turner
I thought we had some sort of gentleman's agreement to leave each other alone. Was I mistaken? You don't like my comments. Fine. Don't read them. I have not commented on one thing you've said as of late and this will be my last.
You don't like me; I don't like you. 'Nuff said!
Sam
"What happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?"
Isnt that called constipation :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:
Quote from: TwoCatSam on Sep 10, 09:18 AM 2012
Promise I'll shut up soon.............
Having worked on refrigerators for 30+ years I can say that there are times when the switch sticks closed and the light does stay on. The customer complaint is the fridge is warm but the freezer is fine. How to test? Open the door and touch the bulb. Working properly, it will never be hot. When the switch is stuck, it will burn you.
As to the tree, it does not produce sound. Sound is defined as vibrations hitting an ear drum--roughly. It produces a noise if no creature on earth hears it.
Turner
I thought we had some sort of gentleman's agreement to leave each other alone. Was I mistaken? You don't like my comments. Fine. Don't read them. I have not commented on one thing you've said as of late and this will be my last.
You don't like me; I don't like you. 'Nuff said!
Sam
Sam
I never said i dont like u at all. Theres no gentlemans agreement from my side. U decided all of it. I really like you. Your funny and clever. I love reading your stuff. I now understand you dont like me...thats fine..
Turner
Quote"What happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?"
Isnt that called constipation (link:://rouletteforum.cc/Smileys/default/Twisted.gif) (link:://rouletteforum.cc/Smileys/default/Twisted.gif) (link:://rouletteforum.cc/Smileys/default/Twisted.gif) (link:://rouletteforum.cc/Smileys/default/Twisted.gif) (link:://rouletteforum.cc/Smileys/default/Twisted.gif) (link:://rouletteforum.cc/Smileys/default/Twisted.gif) (link:://rouletteforum.cc/Smileys/default/Twisted.gif)
;D Some marriages are like that.
@ Sam,
I think we'll have to agree to disagree on the sound thing. If sound requires both a transmitter and receiver, that would apply to light, too: Light = light generator + eye. So if (electrically) the light stays on when you close the fridge door (due to a fault), by the same logic, the bulb produces no light!
When I switch of the light in the kitchen, it moves to the fridge, you can easy check that.
Quote from: Bayes on Sep 10, 09:33 AM 2012
;D Some marriages are like that.
@ Sam,
I think we'll have to agree to disagree on the sound thing. If sound requires both a transmitter and receiver, that would apply to light, too: Light = light generator + eye. So if (electrically) the light stays on when you close the fridge door (due to a fault), by the same logic, the bulb produces no light!
The point is that no matter what test you do you cant prove your fridge light is on or off right now. You can only assume it.
Quote from: turnerfeck on Sep 10, 09:45 AM 2012
The point is that no matter what test you do you can't prove your fridge light is on or off right now. You can only assume it.
Everything can be proved. Even this. You have to open door just slightly aad gently, about 1cm, to see inside but not to activate light switch. And for name of test I just tryed it again. LoL. I proved that when doors of fridge are closed, light is off ;)
Cheers
Drazen
Quote from: drazen_cro on Sep 10, 11:16 AM 2012
Everything can be proved. Even this. You have to open door just slightly aad gently, about 1cm, to see inside but not to activate light switch. And for name of test I just tryed it again. LoL. I proved that when doors of fridge are closed, light is off ;)
Cheers
Drazen
Nope...you proved it goes off then when you looked. that's not proof that as you walked away it didn't come back on
You are assuming that
Quote from: turnerfeck on Sep 10, 11:28 AM 2012
Nope...you proved it goes off then when you looked. that's not proof that as you walked away it didn't come back on
If wasn't turned on when and the way I looked, then also can't turn on when i walk away. Because that would be technicaly impossible. We speak here about facts, physics, electricity, not theorys of conspiracy. They don't exist in fridges LoL
Cheers
Drazen
Quote from: drazen_cro on Sep 10, 11:32 AM 2012
If wasn't turned on when and the way I looked, then also can't turn on when i walk away. Because that would be technicaly impossible. We speak here about facts, physics, electricity, not theorys of conspiracy. They don't exist in fridges LoL
Cheers
Drazen
So prove your fridge light is definatly off at a time you wernt near by without assuming anything. The point of the thought experiment is to realise that we assume many things that we cant prove. Like wikipedea is the truth for example :thumbsup:
Quote from: turnerfeck on Sep 10, 11:50 AM 2012
So prove your fridge light is definatly off at a time you wernt near by without assuming anything. The point of the thought experiment is to realise that we assume many things that we can't prove. Like wikipedea is the truth for example :thumbsup:
Lets back to subject. Thanks god at least everything in roulette can be proved.
Cheers
Drazen
Quote from: drazen_cro on Sep 10, 11:56 AM 2012
Lets back to subject. Thanks God at least everything in roulette can be proved.
Cheers
Drazen
Yeah...cos God doesnt play dice, right Einstein?
Quote from: turnerfeck on Sep 10, 12:01 PM 2012
Yeah...cos God doesn't play dice, right Einstein?
Maybe. But even if God gambles, who is the croupier then?
Quote from: turnerfeck on Sep 10, 11:50 AM 2012
Like wikipedea is the truth for example
link:://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia (link:://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia) :xd:
Everything is by chance, from the smallest, quaint physics is random, the long run gave a result as our world.
Whats the odds you are here, a long road billions years ago, life start, and just a few in every generation, from single cells most of the time to you, and every shift as odds of one to a billion.
You are lucky being.
Quote from: drazen_cro on Sep 10, 12:05 PM 2012
Maybe. But even if God gambles, who is the croupier then?
Well...hope I aint telling something you know...apologies if I am but Einstein famously said "God doesnt play dice" He never liked quantum physics much because of particles having a probability of being somewhere and everywhere.
So the croupier must be Max Planck
Quote from: turnerfeck on Sep 10, 12:39 PM 2012
Well...hope I ain't telling something you know...apologies if I am but Einstein famously said "God doesn't play dice" He never liked quantum physics much because of particles having a probability of being somewhere and everywhere.
So the croupier must be Max Planck
Well you can't prove what he said is true, can you? :)
You see, Einsten was one of the greatest mathematician and especialy greates physicst of our age..
And he said that roulette is impossible to beat, unless you steal chips from croupier LoL
But how such great mind was wrong about the game that only can be observed from 2 angels. Mathematical and physical...
It can be beaten on both aspects... He never liked random you say? Maybe that way is possible he didn't knew random has its limits?
If he knew, he could easily beat the game... >:D
And about physics parameters, moment or time until ball hits the diamond is always same at some point(s)!, no matter how you spun the ball. And few other parameters he needed to get precise hit were much more in players favour in his time.So he didn't had excuse to beat the game... LoL
Cheers
Drazen
Quote from: Ralph on Sep 10, 12:33 PM 2012
Everything is by chance, from the smallest, quaint physics is random, the long run gave a result as our world.
what's the odds you are here, a long road billions years ago, life start, and just a few in every generation, from single cells most of the time to you, and every shift as odds of one to a billion.
You are lucky being.
Ralph....totally correct. The odds of us being here are insane. There are thousands of factors for life.
The moon tides, the angle the earth is at, the distance from the sun. The class of the sun. And the physics themselves in this universe. There are many other factors before the "chance" of life can happen or not. Then for it to produce a species that can reason and question is millions to one withing that fiirst chance ever happening.
This whole concept is discussed in:
The Grand Design-Stephen Hawking
Quote from: drazen_cro on Sep 10, 12:55 PM 2012
Well you can't prove what he said is true, can you? :)
LoL..my point exactly. We assume many things. I wasn't there when he said it.
You see, Einsten was one of the greatest mathematician and especialy greates physicst of our age..
And he said that roulette is impossible to beat, unless you steal chips from croupier LoL
That was 80 years ago, and Casinos still have 3 or 4 roulette tables and 2 or 3 airball.
I think we have a way to go before we can announce we have beat roulette.
But how such great mind was wrong about the game that only can be observed from 2 angels. Mathematical and physical...
It can be beaten on both aspects... He never liked random you say? Maybe that way is possible he didn't knew random has its limits?
He didn't like the fact that photons acted like particals and waves. he didn't like the fact that a partical was everywhere, just more probably some places than others.
If he knew, he could easily beat the game... >:D
And about physics parameters, moment or time until ball hits the diamond is always same at some point!, no matter how you spun the ball. And few other parameters he needed to get precise hit were much more in players favour in his time.So he didn't had excuse to beat the game... LoL
He will of made the comment after running the maths I guess. He concluded it couldnt be beat. Hope hes wrong, but E still =MC2, 100 years later, so Im not holding my breath
Cheers
Drazen
Quote from: Ralph on Sep 10, 12:33 PM 2012
Everything is by chance
This is something else that can't be proved. >:D
Much as I admire Stephen Hawking, I think he's talking out of his arse. M-theory is sheer speculation, there's no observational support for it whatsoever. :o
Quote from: Bayes on Sep 10, 01:17 PM 2012
This is something else that can't be proved. >:D
Much as I admire Stephen Hawking, I think he's talking out of his arse. M-theory is sheer speculation, there's no observational support for it whatsoever. :o
Some observations is done, in MATH and not in the world. I fully understand the formulas, as I am a former who study this as a job. It is like the roulette, the formulas do not allways can be practical proven, and until then we make a good income as we are ignorant,as the bumble bee, do not know it can not fly.
Quote from: Bayes on Sep 10, 01:17 PM 2012
This is something else that can't be proved. >:D
Much as I admire Stephen Hawking, I think he's talking out of his arse. M-theory is sheer speculation, there's no observational support for it whatsoever. :o
Bayes....have you read the book? . I didnt really see much evidence on what he had decided what M-theory exactly was. It was wishy washy...but...I liked most of it. Its a good read. looking at the odds against it, we shouldnt be here, but considering the universe is so massive of course we should.
Im reading Brian Cox/Jeff Forshaw The Quantum Universe. Its much heavier reading than "why does E=MC2" by him....and that was hard going. I dont know why I put myself through it. After all...whats it got to do with the price of fish?
Well I pressume you are reading all this MOP,as your thread have
arrived from;get out of the worst gambing fallacy----to philosophy,
sex,reincarnation,his mighty without croupier,literature,science,and
many other things but GAMBING FALLACY.....nevertheless in all I agree
with your views/am sure others do too/except that few of us don't
belong to that category simply couse we still here and playing every day.
Will let you think how come......maybe one day you will catch the train,,,
hope you do.....................and good luck
Quote from: F_LAT_INO on Sep 10, 04:00 PM 2012
Well I pressume you are reading all this MOP,as your thread have
arrived from;get out of the worst gambing fallacy----to philosophy,
sex,reincarnation,his mighty without croupier,literature,science,and
many other things but GAMBING FALLACY.....nevertheless in all I agree
with your views/am sure others do too/except that few of us don't
belong to that category simply couse we still here and playing every day.
Will let you think how come......maybe one day you will catch the train,,,
hope you do.....................and good luck
Flat...well....15 or so posts in a row without anyone bragging or slating MOP or telling us for the 1000th time that they do the same thing everyday of their life was refreshing.
The universe is here for the long run so it might as well do something or even try everything. Much like us roulette players; here for the long run trying out everything. :)
A lot of great posts lately.
2Cat:
Interesting thoughts. Makes you think, pretty cool.
Could we imagine a universe/reality in which Red and Black never balance?
Just Red, always up by at least 20%?
Bayes quote:
""Or, 'if a tree falls in the woods and there's no-one there to hear it, does it still make a sound?"
I would say yes, because sound is a wave travelling through space, which happens whether anyone is there or not."
Only Saskwatch knows :)
Skakus:
Where is your new avatar from?
I think it is from a Nickelodeon show from the 90's?
The universe...reality? That's my department.
Which universe are we talking about; the fake one (the 'matrix') or the real one (reality)?
Each one is opposite the other, so if one is eternal, the other is temporary.
Reality is built from singularly good features and benefits.
Unreality is built from a combination of opposites, none of which are really good.
Unreality offers experiences we consider "good" and others we consider "evil".
When we are weary of the roller-coaster ride, we will take the peace train back to where we came from.
Unreality offers everything imaginable, beyond the everything that is the known reality.
It does 'try' to manifest everything that can be imagined, but never anything actually real.
Unreality is like a casino. We hope to gain from it.
It can be very promising, but very disappointing.
In gaining one universe, we 'lose' the other...as our normal experience.
This is because, as mentioned, they are opposites, and can't be mixed...as an experience.
Roulette is symbolic of all games played within the unreality of the 'matrix'-like universe.
If one can overcome the roulette wheel, one can also overcome the legendary 'wheel of life'.
Can the roulette wheel be overcome? Depends on what one means by that.
One overcomes the matrix by escaping/leaving it.
If we stay in the matrix, is there a way to beat it at it's own game?
Only John Legend knows. ;)
I DON'T know.
I keep an open mind because nothing is as it seems...in a universe opposite reality.
Very few believe this universe can be overcome.
Many don't even see the need. They like the steak.
But a few have overcome it, and have lived to talk about it.
The game was invented by a Jesuit, which figures.
I think it would be highly symbolic to see someone overcome this game.
One thing i know, the matrix offers both sides of a coin...always dual...always duplicitous.
If it's possible to lose, it's possible to win...from a relative point of view.
What is bad can suddenly be good, and visa versa. Fortunes change.
I know that if one does not believe something is possible, he makes his own luck...predicts his own future...and visa versa.
An open mind is like an open tomb, and must be open to ever beat anything like roulette...if it can be beat.
I don't necessarily recommend believing. Knowing is preferable.
I just recommend questioning all conditions that are said to be impossible.
There is no one universe in the matrix.
There is one 'big bang' for every decision you could possibly make.
You step into the resulting universe that most closely associates with your state of mind.
None of these universes would exist as experience if no one was interested.
None of them really exist at all, except in imagination.
~Still Christ!
The world is in our mind, it is not 100 years ago we did not know it was anything beyond the milk way, and they were playing roulette, with a conception of an universe rather small from now days view.
The did not counting its growing at an ever faster speed as the stakes on red losses.
They know about it was more than Newtonian mechanics but still they stick to it in the ballistic reading to beat the wheel, we still do.
Still Quote:
"I keep an open mind because nothing is as it seems...in a universe opposite reality."
Then you are free.
(I don't mean for that to sound very serious :) )
Quote from: speed on Sep 09, 12:01 PM 2012
Bravo Robeenhuut!!! You're the first one on this forum who connected deviation and positive progression. :thumbsup:
This is the same way I play roulette for a long time, i have some modification but base is the same , so far proved to be long term winner, tested in RX on milions spins. Who does not believe it should try.
speed
Thx Speed. Could you please give us more info on it?
Quote from: turnerfeck on Sep 10, 02:03 PM 2012
Bayes....have you read the book? . I didn't really see much evidence on what he had decided what M-theory exactly was. It was wishy washy...but...I liked most of it. Its a good read. looking at the odds against it, we shouldnt be here, but considering the universe is so massive of course we should.
I'm reading Brian Cox/Jeff Forshaw The Quantum Universe. Its much heavier reading than "why does E=MC2" by him....and that was hard going. I don't know why I put myself through it. After all...what's it got to do with the price of fish?
TF, no I haven't read it, only some reviews - might get around to it one day.
I must admit I find this speculative scientific stuff a bit boring, Physics seems to have lost touch with reality these days, in my opinion. Most of it seems like a fudge to make the equations balance. For me, developments in the life sciences are more interesting.
But here's one on my reading list - link:://:.mikamar.biz/book-info/tes-a.htm (link:://:.mikamar.biz/book-info/tes-a.htm)
By the way, are you a buddhist?
Quote from: Bayes on Sep 11, 06:14 AM 2012
By the way, are you a buddhist?
I would say I am not a buddhist..because you have to of been born one..too much western programming in me, but I study it. I've read much Alan Watts, Dogen, Suzuki, Humphreys, to name a few.
I think Einstein said something like this " If there is any religion that stands up to the modern way of thinking, it would be buddhism"
I suffered badly from depression many years ago and Buddhism changed my life. Made me realise that your own thinking is the cause of all your problems.
Seems a bit spooky you ask just before I changed my avatar...(I hadnt read your post then)
if you say "I am a Buddhist"....you have already misunderstood it and left the path.
You migth find this book rather interesting, altough it's quite old already (1975). Still actual in some parallels it makes:
link:s://:.dmt-nexus.me/Files/Books/General/The%20Tao%20Of%20Physics.pdf (link:s://:.dmt-nexus.me/Files/Books/General/The%20Tao%20Of%20Physics.pdf)
PS: Why you say you need to be born a budhist to be one? Is that a race? LoL Are you saying that if you are born christian, you can't be anything else? Because I was raised in a christian/catholic background, and I don't follow any of that.
All this notions of religion are lerned through life. We are born atheists, all of us. And completly ignorant of all the religious concepts. Then we are programed as you said through life. But once you understand that everything you know, everything that "defines" you is programed, when you understand it deep in you, the moment when everythign falls off, it's also when you understand that you can reprogram everything that you learned, anytime you wan't. Religious concepts are absolutly no diferent, and as such I believe you can call yourself a budist virtually anytime you want.
Quoteif you say "I am a Buddhist"....you have already misunderstood it and left the path.
Not at all. You can equally be on "the path" with budism or anything else. How can you say you are not in the path, if anyway, you are not getting anywhere, no matter what you choose?? There is no path at all :) A litle like Allan says (in other words), "the path" is for people who like to suffer, before understanding. It doesn't mean they won't "get there". It's for people who are still clinging to something. Actually "getting there" is ackowledging there is no path...
Ahahah :) But then, it's fun to come to "the path again" and play the game.
I guess people who are not aware of what Watts say's or don't know eastern philosofy will think I'm crazy :)
PPS: Allan Watts is really great :) . You can find really good stuf from him on youtube. Here is one of my favourites:
Alan Watts - The Religion of No Religion (link:://:.youtube.com/watch?v=FlcFhDSVEug#ws)
Vladir...this is why i hate text. You cant allways get the point across.i meant that its difficult to be a true buddhist without being born in a buddhist family in the east. To say im this or im that isnt the point. I just know that the ego and thoughts are the things to try and understand. Once you can see your thoughts happening and dying away during meditation you start to understand why you like and hate. Its hard to prevent the egos reaction but ive learned to regognise it.
Quote from: Robeenhuut on Sep 11, 12:47 AM 2012
thanks Speed. Could you please give us more info on it?
this is the first time I write about this in public.
simplest method:when is STD on at a certain point 3-6 (your choice) u can start with bet on deviation to go to normal with positive Labouchere prog.
To prevent the large holes in the bank u need to use stop loss-win.Note: stop win-loss will work because system is long term winner.
Let some coder made ​​test on million spins if someone does not believe.
speed
If i may, the buddhist is off the proverbial straight and narrow path for the same reason a christian is off the straight and narrow when calling himself a christian. These are subtle ways of denying one's identity as Buddha, or as Christ...which is the whole point! The issue is about identity. One is Buddha, or one denies it. Denial leads to the rise of a thinking, calculating mind often called the 'ego'. One must be careful when identifying with the Highest (Buddha/Christ) not to include the ego and it's multitude of misrepresentations. The ego is responsible for all meta-physical phenomenon. It's imperative not to include it as anything but misrepresentation of Buddha/Christ...or else one will then be on the proverbial broad road that leads to destruction. The objective of the kind of 'no-thought' meditations that the east is famous for is to starve out the ego of the sustenance it feeds on (thinking) so that it 'dies'. When it is dead, one's life as Buddha/Christ resumes as normal.
Quote from: speed on Sep 09, 12:01 PM 2012
Bravo Robeenhuut!!! You're the first one on this forum who connected deviation and positive progression. :thumbsup:
This is the same way I play roulette for a long time, i have some modification but base is the same , so far proved to be long term winner, tested in RX on milions spins. Who does not believe it should try.
speed
well not strictly true, same observation was made a little while ago on Standard Deviation Math Formula thread -
link:://rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=9853.msg86214#msg86214 (link:://rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=9853.msg86214#msg86214)
I've been trying since then to find the best progression to take advantage of this situation.
The problem I find is if correction is not a large or even medium correction;- once you have your STD3, say 14 singles & 2 series, & your next 10 events are more balanced as might be expected, leaving you with say 19 singles & 7 series (STD2.35), your STD has decreased as might be expected/hoped for, but the absolute deviation is still 12 (difference in amounts between the 2 events you are tracking).
The last 2 sessions I have played, I've used Skakus' EC Money Management which combines a positive & a negative progression, as this gives profit when you are obtaining close to 50/50 results (as in a situation where the STD is decreasing but the absolute deviation is staying roughly the same), but also includes a positive progression to take advantage if the difference in the absolute deivation decreases as well as the STD.
Quote from: speed on Sep 11, 02:52 PM 2012this is the first time I write about this in public.
simplest method:
when is STD on at a certain point 3-6 (your choice) You can start with bet on deviation to go to normal with positive Labouchere prog.
To prevent the large holes in the bank u need to use stop-loss-win.
Note: stop-win-loss will work because system is long term winner.
Let some coder made ​​test on million spins if someone does not believe.
speed
do you mean to use a reverse labouchere? I hadn't tried this.. I will, thanks.
On Marigny over 1024 placed bets i have +80 flat bet which is 3.23 STD with first march to catch corrections i tested 8)
But now trying 2nd march, which slight different and for now works even better... :ooh:
Yes positive progression is way to go. Look here, mr. Bayes attached modification of reversed labouchere. It is quite interesting. You wanna try this, belive me ;)
link:://rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=2904.msg26450#msg26450 (link:://rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=2904.msg26450#msg26450)
Cheers
Drazen
Quote from: drazen_cro on Sep 12, 08:08 AM 2012
On Marigny over 1024 placed bets i have +80 flat bet which is 3.23 STD with first march to catch corrections i tested 8)
But now trying 2nd march, which slight different and for now works even better... :ooh:
Yes positive progression is way to go. Look here, mr. Bayes attached modification of reversed labouchere. It is quite interesting. You wanna try this, belive me ;)
link:://rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=2904.msg26450#msg26450 (link:://rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=2904.msg26450#msg26450)
Cheers
Drazen
cheers Drazen :thumbsup:
Drazen,
When i click your link i get this
"An Error Has Occurred!
The topic or board you are looking for appears to be either missing or off limits to you."
Stephan
Oh Stepkevh now it seems that is maybe something with your account. You had same issue with ego-s link. Maybe you should ask some of mods why is that happening to you?
I checked the link. It works. For monaco also obviously...
While you are solving that, I all attach you that file here and i think now you could get it.
Cheers
Drazen
Deviation by itself is not enough to overcome the house advantage (1.35)
When the deviation reached a certain point you need start to bet with slow positive progression such as positive labouchere, it is simple and you all know it.
Who does not know what is the positive progression:
*positive progression is when on win bet u increase the next bet, negative progression is when u on loss bet increase bet. :)
Im in the past post the graphics on this forum that shows positive chronos with some modifications beat home advantage in the long run, i think its 700 000 spins but it have big holes in bank. i reduced that big holes with new modifications but it still need a solid bank to play for 100% win...
Agree this is a very good way to play roulette ( STD + pos. progressions ).
I use pos. prog. from a few years now , thanks to Hermes .
Bet selection not really matter , can use FTL, the second last , the hottest, the middle one...
I bet on 12 numbers groups (like doz or col) and on 9 numbers groups(3 streets...inside...etc)
cheers
Quote from: speed on Sep 12, 01:00 PM 2012
I'm in the past post the graphics on this forum that shows positive chronos with some modifications beat home advantage in the long run, i think its 700 000 spins but it have big holes in bank. i reduced that big holes with new modifications but it still need a solid bank to play for 100% win...
I would like to have the data in a spreadsheet so i can see what i can do with it to make it playable with smaller bankroll, some waiting, but hopefully not much. Anything with an actual positive expectancy can be managed.
Cool to see things going this way...The element to perfect it, is when to attack.
and the most steady one with flat betting is to interact when there is a clear indication for correction.
[reveal]
24 18 34 0 4 26 1 28 8 26 26 17 35 32 31 25 4 11 2 3 18 33 0 23 21 28 15 12 34 33 11 19 21 16 27 8 15 6 5 13 36 2 14 30 36 4 26 33 25 30 29 20 26 6 10 21 3 10 9 35 28 27 29 31 11 28 11 33 17 25 1 14 18 9 1 1 25 14 32 16 29 15 24 24 10 17 1 32 6 13 31 20 33 8 29 28 9 12 5 19 10 7 20 30 23 32 11 15 31 23 4 34 1 9 25 16 34 27 4 11 30 16 21 23 20 36 17 36 17 13 16 20 34 22 31 14 12 14 3 7 33 34 1 14 16 7 3 3 35 27 0 7 20 17 3 10 15 16 8 1 35 9 36 0 11 12 25 0 11 2 36 15 2 35 1 12 21 33 22 2 35 35 4 10 22 2 20 6 14 20 3 16 9 36 2 19 16 30 0 27 32 5 27 5 28 21 23 11 0 23 2 1 19 3 14 20 16 36 4 27 36 10 27 18 29 36 24 16 27 15 26 7 9 28 25 15 6 23 24 6 21 11 29 23 26 21 27 22 10 3 0 5 31 28 18 1 36 33 29 9 29 34 15 21 2 4 8 26 24 16 33 14 36 31 7 4 8 33 0 28 35 18 21 23 16 15 24 9 34 16 17 15 30 1 24 29 1 27 28 28 [/size]Timestamp: 2012-09-12 22:06:06 UTC[/reveal]
******************************
SEQUENCE DBL FOR RED & BLACK
******************************
1: -
2: -
3: L
4: L
5: L
6: L
7: W
8: L
9: W
10: W
11: W
12: W
13: L
14: W
15: W
16: W
17: L
18: W
19: L
20: L
21: L
22: W
23: L
24: L
25: L
26: L
27: L
28: L
29: L
30: L
31: L
32: W
33: W
34: L
35: L
36: W
37: L
38: W
39: W
40: W
41: W
42: L
43: W
44: L
45: L
46: W
47: L
48: L
49: L
50: L
51: W
52: W
53: W
54: L
55: L
56: L
57: W
58: W
59: L
60: L
61: W
62: L
63: W
64: W
65: W
66: W
67: W
68: L
69: L
70: W
71: W
72: W
73: W
74: W
75: W
76: W
77: W
78: W
79: L
80: L
81: W
82: W
83: W
84: W
85: L
86: L
87: L
88: L
89: W
90: W
91: W
92: W
93: W
94: W
95: L
96: L
97: W
98: W
99: L **DBL R&B :Singles=2 | Series =14 | Ecart =3.0
100: W
101: W
102: W
103: L
104: W (won bet after clear indication)
105: L
106: L
107: W
108: L (won bet after clear indication)
109: W
110: W
Quote from: monaco on Sep 12, 07:58 AM 2012
well not strictly true, same observation was made a little while ago on Standard Deviation Math Formula thread -
link:://rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=9853.msg86214#msg86214 (link:://rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=9853.msg86214#msg86214)
I've been trying since then to find the best progression to take advantage of this situation.
The problem I find is if correction is not a large or even medium correction;- once you have your STD3, say 14 singles & 2 series, & your next 10 events are more balanced as might be expected, leaving you with say 19 singles & 7 series (STD2.35), your STD has decreased as might be expected/hoped for, but the absolute deviation is still 12 (difference in amounts between the 2 events you are tracking).
The last 2 sessions I have played, I've used Skakus' EC Money Management which combines a positive & a negative progression, as this gives profit when you are obtaining close to 50/50 results (as in a situation where the STD is decreasing but the absolute deviation is staying roughly the same), but also includes a positive progression to take advantage if the difference in the absolute deivation decreases as well as the STD.
do you mean to use a reverse labouchere? I hadn't tried this.. I will, thanks.
Of course you are right. Its just still a gamble on SD going back to sub 3 territory but unfortunately even though SD drops down significantly as you pointed out the next set of spins can still produce a continuation of a current trend. You may call it an educated guess ;D but its really GF.
Playing Reversed Labby is just hoping for a deviation to work in our favor in general and playing it after SD hits a certain number indicating imbalance only gives a better profit if our timing is right.
Unfortunately no magic formula here.
@Bayes
An interesting book, and one that begs the question...Why is everyone so certain about everything?
A question that is applicable here? Of course not. You can be sure of that! ;D
Woods
It is uncertain as the quant physics, you can never know the balls position and speed in the same experiment ;D. We know the ball will land on an number if not a quant jump pass it to the floor.
We may never know, but may guess a small fraction better with information. Can our guess be better or about 3% from the odds, we will win more than lose.