Here's what I've discovered with Roulette and how you can beat it:
Relativity - You can't ever witness 22 reds in a row unless you play for 4 million spins in a row and record/observe each one. Alternatively, you could take a recording of 8 million spins and then run a simulation starting at 4 million and you will encounter it sooner, but that's no longer natural. So the only people who are ever going to report 22 reds in a row are bots or the casino themselves. I believe there's a way of calculating the maximum number of reds likely to ever appear in a row and reach a constant like the speed of light, but that test is not easy to describe (it might be a figure near to 50). Dividing, say, 4 million spins into multiple sessions played at different times and/or different tables will increase your chances of winning.
Quantum Mechanics - the past affects future spins from the act of observing/recording a sequence of results (Gambler's Fallacy is false). To convert more losses from, say, even chance bets to more wins it depends on how many spins you are going to sit there for. For 100,000 spins you need to wait for Black or Red to be ahead of the other by 105 before betting on the opposite. You will then end up with slightly more wins than losses. For 1 million spins that figure of 105 would need to be higher, but you won't be sitting there for 1 million spins, right?
You could beat Roulette with more losses in total and using a Negative Progression, but the table limits will stop you from achieving that.
So the way to beat Roulette definitively is by using a Positive Progression when you know you will get more wins than losses.
Am I crazy or a genius? :twisted:
do you go to b+m often, as when i'm there playin granps and that block of 9 can take 33 spins to hit and thats more than once i've seen, so you could well see that block of colour.
Sorry, I'm not familiar with that game.
Edit: sorry, I didn't know I could modify somebody's post. Have now lost most of the text. I meant to just quote it as a new reply--falkor
-
This make me think of this qoute from the Wiki ...
"Regression toward the mean simply says that, following an extreme random event, the next random event is likely to be less extreme. In no sense does the future event "compensate for" or "even out" the previous event, though this is assumed in the gambler's fallacy (and variant law of averages). Similarly, the law of large numbers states that in the long term, the average will tend towards the expected value, but makes no statement about individual trials. For example, following a run of 10 heads on a flip of a fair coin (a rare, extreme event), regression to the mean states that the next run of heads will likely be less than 10, while the law of large numbers states that in the long term, this event will likely average out, and the average fraction of heads will tend to 1/2. By contrast, the gambler's fallacy incorrectly assumes that the coin is now "due" for a run of tails, to balance out."
I test this... Ecart play ...
This is how the LW-Registry look like:
LWLWWLWWWW LLL WWWLWWLLWWLWWLWLWWWWLLWWWWWWLWLWWLWW LLL LWWLW
Cheers
QuoteMaybe its an idea to wait for a difference like 6% and than bet for the lowest in a flatbet, light progr.??
Grtzz R
Everything is relative to the observer, so your bet should be based on the difference that you record or observe.
If you are going to a Casino just for 1 day or 1,000 spins, you only have to wait for a difference of 2 for even money bets, but then you have to leave the casino at the end of the day and not continue to play! (see attached)
Not trying to be an Ar*e here Falkor, but I read a lot on these 3 subjects (Relativity/Quantum Mechanics/Roulette)
Quote from: falkor on Oct 30, 07:06 AM 2014
Here's what I've discovered with Roulette and how you can beat it:
Relativity - You can't ever witness 22 reds in a row unless you play for 4 million spins in a row and record/observe each one. Alternatively, you could take a recording of 8 million spins and then run a simulation starting at 4 million and you will encounter it sooner, but that's no longer natural. So the only people who are ever going to report 22 reds in a row are bots or the casino themselves.
Not true. The odds of dying in a plane crash in Europe are around 18 Million to one. Tell that to the people on board the Malaysian Airways Flight 370. Well you cant, because they all died. They didnt have to go on 18 million flights first did they?
I believe there's a way of calculating the maximum number of reds likely to ever appear in a row and reach a constant like the speed of light, but that test is not easy to describe (it might be a figure near to 50). Dividing, say, 4 million spins into multiple sessions played at different times and/or different tables will increase your chances of winning.
Will it? I think not. Take 12 numbers from one table, 12 from another, 13 from another. You will have 37 random numbers which will fit nicely into the Binomial distribution curve
One of the points of relativity is that you have your own personal space time world line. Its unique to you....that includes what you observe.
Quantum Mechanics - the past affects future spins from the act of observing/recording a sequence of results (Gambler's Fallacy is false).
Every spin is random and independant. They have no memory of each other. Its an illusion because there is a marque and you treat time as if it moves, with past time, "now" and time to yet happen
Thats a human illusion....and you feel comfortable with it, so you see past numbers, and the last number as "now" and think that the future is predictable.
To convert more losses from, say, even chance bets to more wins it depends on how many spins you are going to sit there for. For 100,000 spins you need to wait for Black or Red to be ahead of the other by 105 before betting on the opposite. You will then end up with slightly more wins than losses. For 1 million spins that figure of 105 would need to be higher, but you won't be sitting there for 1 million spins, right?
You could beat Roulette with more losses in total and using a Negative Progression, but the table limits will stop you from achieving that.
So the way to beat Roulette definitively is by using a Positive Progression when you know you will get more wins than losses.
I dont see the link with quantum mechanics. Its the study of the very very small:electrons etc. Even molecules start to act as expected for E=MC2.
Am I crazy or a genius? :twisted:
Turner is right. :thumbsup:
QuoteNot true. The odds of dying in a plane crash in Europe are around 18 Million to one. Tell that to the people on board the Malaysian Airways Flight 370. Well you cant, because they all died. They didnt have to go on 18 million flights first did they?
How do you know the plane flew in the first place? Did you know any of the people that died, personally? Were you there with them at the airport on the night of their departure? That news story was a hoax.
I'll let you know how I do at the Casino tonight!
Falkor
Dont go tonight you'll crash and burn ask turner
Falkor better yet ask Turner to accompany you for a bankroll stop-loss.
I love lamp.
Quote from: falkor on Oct 30, 12:05 PM 2014
That news story was a hoax.
wow....what are the odds of that?. Must be billions to one
Quote from: Turner on Oct 30, 02:29 PM 2014
wow....what are the odds of that?. Must be billions to one
:twisted:
Casino is probably also a big hoax......lol lol :xd:
Falkor, egos method of 1-18 and 3rd dozen is the answer to winning if you can wait for 2 virtual losses
Better still, to be safe wait for 3 virtual loss....
You guys obviously know nothing about how government and media operates. They have been using psychological warfare and propaganda since time immemorial; a firm understanding of history is paramount. You need to look more at evidence and not be deceived by the authorities. So maybe check out links like this one for example:
link:://nodisinfo.com/fake-tears-malaysian-airlines-hoax/ (link:://nodisinfo.com/fake-tears-malaysian-airlines-hoax/)
By assuming the Malaysian jet claims were real without looking at any evidence is a sign of delusion. It's the same with the arguments against my system. Unlike winkel and his system I have posted test results over 100K spins - but still people are deluded into making assumptions without looking at my evidence, hence none of the above replies are about my test results and some are even personal attacks of ridicule towards me. So maybe have a think about how arrogant, gullible and delusional that comes across as?
I had a very hard time at the casino tonight, including getting the hang of noting down the numbers and ECs on card, but eventually I got comfortable with the routine of the whole real casino experience and using this system. Black caused me a lot of problems from the outset. I was tempted to change my betting scheme, but decided to stick with the system. I guess anyone inexperienced with offline casinos might have a frustrating time during their first session. I planned to play for 200 spins, but in the end I decided to stop at £6 profit after 66 spins. Tonight was not about making profit though, but was about testing the system with the cheapest possible bankroll and at the lowest "level".
Although the reds always remained far from the blacks the system proved quite strong in the long run, as it made profit without the gap closing beyond its initial distance. Should that gap have closed, however, this system was clearly ready to capitalise. The Star System would have already been in recovery near the end of that session.
One good thing about my local casino is that you only lose half the bet when a zero lands.
Falkor, Im confused
You choose to believe a ridiculous hoax theory which in its self (based on statistics of who would believe it against who doesnt) it billions to one, but you refuse to believe a mathematical probability that you could see 22 reds in a row.
Forget flight 370.....are all plane crashes hoaxes? Did any of the dead passengers previously take 18 million flights?
Quote from: Turner on Oct 30, 07:32 PM 2014
Falkor, Im confused
You choose to believe a ridiculous hoax theory which in its self (based on statistics of who would believe it against who doesnt) it billions to one, but you refuse to believe a mathematical probability that you could see 22 reds in a row.
Forget flight 370.....are all plane crashes hoaxes? Did any of the dead passengers previously take 14 million flights?
Which part of my theory is ridiculous? It's derived from experiments in the form of test results. You say I could see 22 reds in a row, but when I run a test on the number of reds in a row I always see that figure gradually increment based on the length of the run - the 22 is always near the end of the 4 million run (never at the beginning or in the middle).
Most plane crashes are probably real unless the media need to distract us with several Malaysian jets, including 1 that mysteriously disappears! However, unless you look at the evidence yourself on a case-by-case basis you cannot be sure, otherwise you are simply relaying official stories (mostly propaganda).
I'm pulling out of this conversation. "Never the twain"and all that.
Just be careful. There is no conspiracy in random numbers.
That's my last piece of advice.
No worries. All truth seekers, including Galileo, were ridiculed at first before people began to accept their conspiracies.
link:://:.infowars.com/33-conspiracy-theories-that-turned-out-to-be-true-what-every-person-should-know/ (link:://:.infowars.com/33-conspiracy-theories-that-turned-out-to-be-true-what-every-person-should-know/)
I can not only provide evidence but can *prove* several conspiracies myself:
1) Christianity was created by Titus Flavius, Josephus, Tiberius Julius Alexander, Bernice (those guys did the 3 synoptic Gospels), Domitian, Suetonius (those two did John, Revelation and the rest of the New Testament books), Trajan and Pliny (final NT contributions).
2) The Old Testament patriarchs were Hyksos kings of northern Egypt.
3) Hitler was a puppet to the Vatican.
This is no laughing matter! World governments are run by psychopaths who continually brainwash their subjects, so that things like Gambler's Fallacy filters down to the masses through scholars, mathematicians and other authority figures. A lot of people visit this forum and say their roulette systems win a lot of money over several short term sessions even though they fail over 100,000+ spins on graphs. John Legend and many other members here claim that short sessions win them money. I don't think they are all lying, so that's why I tested it.
And finally don't forget: money is created out of thin air - banks do not need to labour for it in the first place!
The proper way to test is 100 to 300 spins. Because if you have a streak of 10 one time in 5000 spins that wont mean much.
That means youd have to be at that wheel at that very particular time to catch that streak
Test with a few hundred spins
I agree - maybe 800 to be on the safe side in case you decide to stay for most of the day! But then you know a system is even more stronger/fool proof if it survives 100K, 1 mill or more spins. It's already known that many systems will work in the short run - but the real fallacy is that something like 22 reds could strike you at the beginning of a new session!
Quantum Mechanics and Relativity are both stranger than fiction - indeed reality is not what you think it is - but you never hear people ridiculing the slit experiment or link:://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger's_cat (link:://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger's_cat)
At least you came out ahead at the casino tonight Falkor. Kudos. :thumbsup:
Did not read it yet but I see it exists...
Quote from: falkor on Oct 30, 08:00 PM 2014
Which part of my theory is ridiculous? It's derived from experiments in the form of test results. You say I could see 22 reds in a row, but when I run a test on the number of reds in a row I always see that figure gradually increment based on the length of the run - the 22 is always near the end of the 4 million run (never at the beginning or in the middle).
This is interesting. Provided is true.
Like the process of generating random numbers is just that, a process. Which evolves. Unlike an abstract idea of a stream without beginning or end. This being true would sort of defeat the independence of outcomes.
Has anyone had similar findings in their simulations?