Here is a run from 6 numbers that I literally pulled out of a hat. 2-8-19-22-28-34.
I decided I would start with a $500 bankroll and look to make a 50% return, the amount of spins didn't matter as long as I either got my return or I lost the bank.
I took the numbers, put one unit on each and doubled the unit amount on a number each time it hit. I got my result by spin 49.
I don't have other charted amounts, but I have run this scenario many times on a roulette app and each time I reach my target. Sometimes with 30 spins, sometimes within 90 spins. I have run it past to see if keeps winning but progression bottoms out and negative balances come in. $250 seems to be a good spot for this progression. Haven't tried real money yet, just thought t was interesting that it always reached target on RNG. Even tried it with 1-2-3-4-5-6 and it worked.
It's a repeater system, random numbers that repeat.
(link:://:.pichost.org/images/2018/07/24/temp_777601.png) (link:://:.pichost.org/image/2JVPd)
I believe the graph.
Seriously what gambler will put serious money, say $25 or more
on a number w/o the confidence that comes with a proven strategy?
Quote from: Proofreaders2000 on Jul 24, 07:02 PM 2018
I believe the graph.
Seriously what gambler will put serious money, say $25 or more
on a number w/o the confidence that comes with a proven strategy?
If the money talks, I'll play it. There are certain things is sports betting that when I shared them, I got laughed at, these oddities that "pros" thought funny and odd have made me thousands and thousands of dollars while the "pros" went for proven results that gave them less than 5 percent returns.
You are forgetting THE most fundamental part of gambling...... payouts are less than the odds.
I don't get why its not being understood.
If you bet $1 on a coin toss and average a win 50% of the time, but are paid only $0.90, then the payout is unfair.
So HOW could you overcome it?? Voodoo? Or maybe win more often than 50%?? (Changing the odds)
Quote from: Steve on Jul 24, 08:35 PM 2018
You are forgetting THE most fundamental part of gambling...... payouts are less than the odds.
I don't get why its not being understood.
If you bet $1 on a coin toss and average a win 50% of the time, but are paid only $0.90, then the payout is unfair.
So HOW could you overcome it?? Voodoo? Or maybe win more often than 50%?? (Changing the odds)
Using a $500 bankroll per day over 30 days would give me a $15000 risk. If on 17 of those days I won my $250 and on 13 days I lost, then I would break even. Based on what I have seen so far, I would have far exceeded the 17 wins out of 30.
In my sports betting my average line is -123. As most of my systems work on line favorites. That's a 23% house edge that I overcome day in and day out. 2.7% is workable too. Rather than look on beating all of roulette you have to look at breaking it down to winning more than you lose. A bunch of small system wins adds up more than you think. If I make $1 profit on 10 different systems per day that's $3650 per year. $10 $36500, $100 $365000.
Quote from: Nimo on Jul 25, 04:37 AM 2018Rather than look on beating all of roulette you have to look at breaking it down to winning more than you lose.
Thats changing the odds. Maybe you are a closet ap.
Also i know nothing about your sports systems. If you win morethan you lose, keep going.
Quote from: Steve on Jul 25, 05:00 AM 2018Maybe you are a closet ap.
I don't have the proper holier than thou attitude so I dont think so.
Quote from: Steve on Jul 24, 08:35 PM 2018
You are forgetting THE most fundamental part of gambling...... payouts are less than the odds.
I don't get why its not being understood.
If you bet $1 on a coin toss and average a win 50% of the time, but are paid only $0.90, then the payout is unfair.
So HOW could you overcome it?? Voodoo? Or maybe win more often than 50%?? (Changing the odds)
Steve you should start to work on new phrases, these are worn out.
Like the tittle says, is it.
Here is a small piece of data.
(link:://:.pichost.org/images/2018/07/25/temp_189838.png) (link:://:.pichost.org/image/2JPuc)
So if one was to recklessly bet the non-hit for 148 spins, i reckon there'd be a good chance of winning.
(link:://:.pichost.org/images/2018/07/25/temp_538783.png) (link:://:.pichost.org/image/2JgZa)
So betting non-hit is winning, Turbo got to be winning with those 17's
Wonder what the geezer sitting on the roundabout is going to say
Now if you know on average that 29/30 non-hit average to hit by spin 60, are you going to bet for 4 more non-hit, that could take you to spin 148
(link:://:.pichost.org/images/2018/07/25/temp_689605.png) (link:://:.pichost.org/image/2JHgA)
(link:://:.pichost.org/images/2018/07/25/temp_366530.png) (link:://:.pichost.org/image/2JZTs)
I think not.
Quote from: Nimo on Jul 25, 08:11 AM 2018
I don't have the proper holier than thou attitude so I dont think so.
Don't confuse bad attitude with frustration with the lack of logic and intelligence of some people. Its exactly like trying to reason with a flat earther. They have a child-like understanding and think other people have the problem.
Quote from: winkel on Jul 25, 08:39 AM 2018Steve you should start to work on new phrases, these are worn out.
The truth isn't going to change. Take nottos repeated short term cherry picking results for example.
Quote from: Steve on Jul 25, 01:34 PM 2018
... They have a child-like understanding and think other people have the problem.
Nice description of AP-People
You forgot to include statisticians, mathematicians, physicists, casino consultants etc. Not just aps.
Everyone "professional" is wrong, you are right. Not only that, but your "version" of math is correct.
Quote from: Steve on Jul 25, 03:34 PM 2018
Everyone "professional" is wrong, you are right. Not only that, but your "version" of math is correct.
cmon Steve do you need that kind of posts.
I said "you are right" in everything you claim. I don´t change anything and don´t change math. There is no winkel-version of math. I just said I win despite of that all.
Do you need to make such false claims? You didn´t even argue. You didn´t proof me wrong. You just claim: It can´t be!
That is neither an argument nor a proof. It is just your opinion.
Winkel, ive tested theories like yours before. They dont work.
Is gut coded into roulette xtreme yet? Lets do some proper testing.
If it isnt coded, ill pay someone to code it. And if it doesnt work, you'll reimburse my expenses ok?
Lets get this straight....you wait for 18 unhit, then bet all the unhit. Its something along those lines. Clarify the betting rules so a programmer can code them.
The end result, according to you is the odds dont change, but you win anyway. You have no idea how backwards that is. But let's test anyway.
Quote from: Steve on Jul 25, 04:18 PM 2018
Winkel, ive tested theories like yours before. They dont work.
That others don´t work is no proof that GUT doesn´t work
Is gut coded into roulette xtreme yet? Lets do some proper testing.
I don´t know But if 15 years of winning is no proper testing that s a shame
If it isnt coded, ill pay someone to code it. And if it doesnt work, you'll reimburse my expenses ok?
Who guarantees that the coding is correct? Others who tried to code it doesn´t come across: "Read what is going on!"
Quote from: Steve on Jul 25, 04:22 PM 2018
Lets get this straight....you wait for 18 unhit,
How can you tell it doesn´t work when you didn´t understand the example of the principle. Which is no betting point?
I read the example but I'm on phone and still find it again later.
The source code will be provided.
Either way i want clarification. So please, provide clear betting rules for the programmer.
I'm new to all this GUT "thing".
Going back to cars as I did on another thread:
How do different racing pilots approach some hard turn, wet track, flat tires,... gravel?
Can google put an autopilot car doing the same? No. No way 3 drivers will attack that turn same way.
But.. can they do it better?
Maybe...
As I said, I've just started reading about GUT some weeks ago, and I'm trying to adapt myself to the theories and my own interpretations.
I've seen people using the "concept" with success, and for now I find myself doing it.
Will it last? I don't know...
I can't understand this kind of discussions..
these forums are supposed to be to join people and share experiences, that like the same and seek the same. Not mean to attacking each other.
Life's too short for that... a lot shorter than a "long run" ;)
Well, just to say that, according to what I've read, watched and understand until now, I think there are a lot of subjective choices with the GUT concept.
OK, so we can't model this with in a mathematical way.. Ok, may be true.
If math can't prove how CR7 scores a lot, or says it's impossible to an human to do that, does that mean he don't score a lot?
No.
Quote from: Steve on Jul 25, 04:55 PM 2018
I read the example but I'm on phone and still find it again later.
The source code will be provided.
Either way i want clarification. So please, provide clear betting rules for the programmer.
Find someone who is experienced coding AI
What kind of bullshit response is that? are you avoiding it now? Its simple, give me clear betting rules to send the programmer.
And do you agree to the terms? It will probably cost about $500.
Quote from: ahlidap on Jul 25, 05:04 PM 2018
I can't understand this kind of discussions..these forums are supposed to be to join people and share experiences, that like the same and seek the same. Not mean to attacking each other. Life's too short for that... a lot shorter than a "long run" ;)
I don't understand it either, particularly because if the AP side "wins" the debate and "converts" everyone to their line of thinking, the board posts/traffic/participation goes to zero. Because AP play in Roulette is so limited, there just aren't many AP avenues left to explore to tame the game.
Bottom line: Both sides are right.
Which makes this the stupidest possible debate of all. Math is math, no getting around it, Steve and The General are 100% right, it's not open to debate.
But the system player who wins by "dancing between the raindrops", and "doesn't change how many pockets there are on the wheel", for years (as many have been verified to do), are also 100% right.
Would their method of play stand up to 50k spins or more?
Nope. Are they net positive overall since adopting whatever method they're using? For years?
Yep.So this forum-killing debate, in which system players are leaving in droves, and daily posts outside of this thread are falling steadily to zero, doesn't seem productive to me. Both sides are right, and have been proven right.
Both sides are right? So when someone says i can know for sure than 12 particular numbers wont spin next, they are right?
And you have a long term edge if you dont change the odds?
There is no half truthto it.its black and white. Nobody is debating any system can win for a while. Thats not what we'rediscussing.
Mako, you are missing a lot. Nonsense is harmful to players and i would rather have a quiet forum with accurate and helpful information instead of a busy forum with loads of nonsense. Besides if anyone doesnt like logic or answering questions, they can post in the system players only section.
Im still waiting winkel.
Quote from: Steve on Jul 25, 06:36 PM 2018Im still waiting winkel.
I'm waiting to see when you are going to come through with this that you posted in the Turbo thread seeing as you scoff martingale, systems and Trot has been linked to Winkel soo many times it\s not even funny.
"Actually I'm working on a martingale variant to apply when I figure the trot. It's almost done. I'll publish a 37 spin chart from RS as proof."
Nimo, its a problem if you didnt understand the sarcasm. I thought the martingale and 37 spin chart was a dead giveaway.
Quote from: winkel on Jul 25, 05:10 PM 2018Find someone who is experienced coding AI
Hi Winkel, what kind of AI do you mean? There are many machine learning algorithms, but AI should only be needed if you don't already know what the rules of the system are. With your system you say "gambler's intelligence" is needed because if you just mindlessly bet all the crossings you will lose at the expected rate. In another thread you posted this :
Quote
Again: This tool is a Clinical Bet Adviser. It takes the principle rules and bets every crossing. An experienced player wouldn´t do.
example:
34 32 W 17 9 11 8 3 this is a hole. Stop betting if a hole appears.
38 20 15 11 11 7 4 =1: 0 5 9 14 18 19 20 23 27 29 31 these are double crossings. Don´t bet DC´s
41 27 L 13 12 12 8 4 =0: 1 4 6 7 10 13 15 21 25 30 34 35 36 this is just playing a Dozen don´t do, there is no positive odd
and many more statements to give.
So do you have a full list of the conditions under which you should bet on a crossing? If you do and are happy to share it then it shouldn't be a problem coding the system.
Quote from: winkel on Jul 25, 04:24 PM 2018Who guarantees that the coding is correct? Others who tried to code it doesn´t come across: "Read what is going on!"
It's a good question. I don't think there's much point in providing the source code because only a coder would understand it. One way to check whether a system is coded correctly is to make up a couple of spin sequences which test as many features and aspects of the system as possible and work through them by hand, recording all the results in detail. Then feed these sequences into the program. If it's been coded correctly it will reproduce the hand tested results.
winkel's system depends not only on a crossing, but his mood of the day, i.e. "gambler's intelligence", so cannot be coded. Clever that! Winkel gets to die immortal - remembered for pioneering "the trot". A bit like Bruce Lee - who never actually fought in the ring.
QuoteFind someone who is experienced coding AI
Quote from: Steve on Jul 25, 05:15 PM 2018
What kind of bullshit response is that? are you avoiding it now? Its simple, give me clear betting rules to send the programmer.
And do you agree to the terms? It will probably cost about $500.
Now I can see hwat is going on:
1. My answer is no bullshit-answer. If you can´t find someone who understands AI and its sourcing he wouldn´t understand the rules.
2. RX-Coding is not possible as far as I know so don´t waste time and people on such a try.
3. Cost of 500$: This simply shows that you have no idea of the extensive wealth of the rules. This amount would cover 25 to 50 hours of programming. You are joking.
4. You own VLS-Forum and you own this forum. 90% of the rules and hints and explanation are to find in these two forums. On GUTCBA therre are the links to the clinical rules. The programmer could start with that and than could go through further explanations.
On the above facts I found that this is just an ambush. If a programmer would look at this he would talk about a time needed of 300 to 500 hours. at minimum
So Steve nearly everything is open on your forums. The programmer can start (if you ever was to find one). He can contact me openly or on PM or on e-mail if he has questions and needs further rules and explanations.
Here is your only target:
Post one : coding is done
Post two: we ran it over xxxx spins. It failed.
You are not interested in a fair deal! Why I know that? You are an AP-man!
Looks like youre being evasive winkel.
As Joe correctly highlighted, AI is a learning algorithm for when a clear algorithm is not known.
Ive seen your system rules. They are simple and easily coded. I just want you to verify them here so they are clear to everyone.
What are you concerned about? This is your chance to make a fool out of everyone who criticized you or your approaches.
Quote from: winkel on Jul 26, 04:20 AM 2018If you can´t find someone who understands AI and its sourcing he wouldn´t understand the rules.
So people can only win if they understands AI better than a typical programmer? Really winkel. Its getting ridiculous now.
Whats the next excuse?
But sure ill find an AI programmer. So post the logic and algorithms here.
Quote from: Steve on Jul 26, 04:43 AM 2018
So people can only win if they understands AI better than a typical programmer? Really winkel. Its getting ridiculous now.
Whats the next excuse?
But sure ill find an AI programmer. So post the logic and algorithms here.
Steve, I definitely know what I am talking about. Half of my life I was in systems analysis for programmers. I know what they are good in and I know which skills they need.
Easy example:
I told the people: Watch what is going on.
If a trot goes like this
18 - 10
17 - 11
16 - 12
15 - 13
14 - 14
would you bet on that 14s after that group had hit consecutively 5 times?
Everybody knows what I am pointing out.
Next I said: Make a decision to bet or not to bet. The chance to be right is the same as to be wrong. Look at your experience.
Everybody easily understands. But to code this isn´t that easy. If your programmer comes to this point when he has coded everything else. I (can and) will give him the prepared solution to this problem.
An again: There is GUTCBA, there are links to the basic (clinical) bet-rules, the programmer could start in the next minute. Everything else is also written on this forum. All is in open access.
Even that thief who had stolen my idea and sold it as an E-Book was able to find the basics and rules of GUT.
Quote from: winkel on Jul 26, 05:02 AM 2018Steve, I definitely know what I am talking about. Half of my life I was in systems analysis for programmers. I know what they are good in and I know which skills they need.
Ive been working with programmers almost every day for about 15 years. Let me worry about finding the right programmer.
Quote from: winkel on Jul 26, 05:02 AM 2018would you bet on that 14s after that group had hit consecutively 5 times?
If theres guesswork, thats not a system. Its gambling. Any logic can be coded. Again let me worry about that. Just explain the logic. The same logic you tell people works.
Quote from: winkel on Jul 26, 05:02 AM 2018Next I said: Make a decision to bet or not to bet. The chance to be right is the same as to be wrong. Look at your experience.
I dont guess. Are you saying your system requires guessing?
Quote from: winkel on Jul 26, 05:02 AM 2018If your programmer comes to this point when he has coded everything else. I (can and) will give him the prepared solution to this problem.
Im not giving a programmer half specifications. Whats the problem explaining it here?
Winkel it looks like youre just being evasive, and finding excuses.
I know theres lots of data scattered all over the place. So just give me clear rules to code. You are the master of gut, right? So just make the system rules clear here for everyone, so you dont later claim it was coded wrong
Steve, you should know better than to try to get blood out of a stone.
Quote from: winkel on Jul 26, 05:02 AM 2018I told the people: Watch what is going on.
If a trot goes like this
18 - 10
17 - 11
16 - 12
15 - 13
14 - 14
would you bet on that 14s after that group had hit consecutively 5 times?
Winkel, wouldn't it be simpler just to give us the rules about when to bet on a crossing? In answer to your question above, I have no idea what I would bet on. I guess that means I don't have "gambler's intelligence". ;-)
There seem to be 2 schools of thought in roulette : either you bet on a pattern to break because the opposite is due, or you bet on it to continue because it's trending. Neither of these views are consistent with the maths which says there is no advantage to either. But forget about what the maths says for now; maybe the answer is that both are right but you have to know when to bet for continuance and when to bet for change.
Anyway the point is that you know the system better than anyone else and how to play it correctly, so it does seem as though you're being evasive. A cynic might say that you won't give the full set of detailed rules because then if the system is coded and shown to fail, you can complain that the "correct" rules weren't used. But that wouldn't be the programmer's fault, would it? Also, as falkor pointed out, if the system is never coded (and can't be, because it relies on the mysterious "gambler's intelligence") then you get to preserve your reputation, and without having ever actually done anything to justify it. It seems like the Turbo fiasco all over again.
Joe, you forget how religion works... a false prophet's reputation is based on faith alone!
Quote from: Steve on Jul 26, 05:14 AM 2018
If theres guesswork, thats not a system. Its gambling. Any logic can be coded. Again let me worry about that. Just explain the logic. The same logic you tell people works.
I dont guess. Are you saying your system requires guessing?
Im not giving a programmer half specifications. Whats the problem explaining it here?
Winkel it looks like youre just being evasive, and finding excuses.
I know theres lots of data scattered all over the place. So just give me clear rules to code. You are the master of gut, right? So just make the system rules clear here for everyone, so you dont later claim it was coded wrong
I wrote an very long answer but the software through me out.
So the same in short:
Guessworkfor a special situation a programmer needs 20 or more different rules or aspects to follow. At the table it is good enough to know: If in doubt don´t bet.
JUMP this rule just says 20 spins to jump. But there are also rules where you cann see how many spins there are rally needed to jump into a winning sequence.
(for testing: Use GUTCBA, put in 100 spins, run the software; next you delete the very first spin and start again; ans so on; If you compare the results you can see what difference just one single spin can make.)
Just make a decision At the table you can´t check several ways to analyse, but with your experience your gut-decision will also work. But this gut-decision is not a cadable expression.
being evasive
Everybody knows that several people have stolen my openly described GUT and sold it.
You, Steve, now want to post all the details here for everybody to see. And then these thieves go and sell a GUT 2.0 and I´m left with just the honour? I´m not that stupid.
So if anybody thinks that I´m evasive: I´m fine with it
But if a AP-Player just claims it can´t work because ... (HE, 37 pocket, 1+1=2) and other stupid phrases and I can see that they (even you Steve) just don´t understand the basic Crossing-description, I will respond. that´s my right.
I don´t have to proof I know it works.
All the people who studied and learned and tested it over and over again now see what I mean by "Watch what is going on" "Make a decision" "If in doubt don´t bet" "Jump" and they win.
Everybody who didn´t study nor understands has no right to say it doesn´t work.
That sounds like iron is to heavy to swim or fly.
It is true: Iron can´t swim
It is true: Iron doesn´t fly by own decision.
It is true: there are 37 pockets every spin
It is true: there is a houseedge
It is true: There are people who can´t think out of the box, who can´t question old facts and rules. But they won´t find anything new.
Only within a private contact to the programmer I would open all detailed rules which are til now covered under "Guesswork"
And If you are going to sell it later I want a majority of the income.
In the companies I've worked with, which are large international companies, about 50% of all decisions are at the end a gut decision.
Nice Winkel :thumbsup:
This is for Mako
Betselection just bet the non-hit, you should know the Trot?
The time table tells you 15 non-hit in spins 11-40 and at spin 60 average for non-hit is 30.
So Mako here we see a 10/10 so 10 +15 = 25 so you see 25 is covering spins 39/40. You can see this was played just now on MPR: R.org, whats the time table say?
22ND non-hit right on time; end now with 16509 units
(link:://:.pichost.org/images/2018/07/26/temp_352513.jpg) (link:://:.pichost.org/image/2heVA)
Cherry pick that on the roundabout :thumbsup:
Anyone read this?
link:s://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=9426.msg78610#msg78610 (link:s://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=9426.msg78610#msg78610)
1. No abusive language or personal attacks. (semi-VIOLATED)
4. Respect other people's opinions. (clearly VIOLATED)
5. Do not inhibit free expression of ideas / criticisms. (clearly VIOLATED)
6. Do not behave in any way that is unjustly unpleasant, or makes participation in the forum unappealing. In other words, be good and respectful to others - don't be a dickhead. Those who are behaving in any unacceptable way will usually be warned first, but if the behavior continues, banning will result. (VIOLATED - well a little subjective)
ouch..
Quote from: winkel on Jul 26, 06:50 AM 2018Only within a private contact to the programmer I would open all detailed rules which are til now covered under "Guesswork"
And If you are going to sell it later I want a majority of the income.
Seems fair enough. Steve can hire a programmer to code it and you should get him to either sign a non-disclosure agreement, or, if he intends to sell it, get a legally binding agreement that you will get > 50% of the returns. What do you think, Steve?
Quote from: Joe on Jul 26, 05:27 AM 2018
Winkel, wouldn't it be simpler just to give us the rules about when to bet on a crossing? In answer to your question above, I have no idea what I would bet on. I guess that means I don't have "gambler's intelligence". ;-)
No! Intelligence comes from empiric and experience.
Just watch the other example:
14 - 20
14 - 19
14 - 18
14 - 17
14 - 16
14 - 15
14 - 14
The same crossing 14 - 14 which of them would you like to bet?
What I wanna express: a crossing itself tells you not whether to bet or not to bet.
You have to consider how it developed.
another example:
17 - 17
17 - 16
17 - 15
16 - 16
16 - 15
16 - 14
15 - 15
Would (Should) you bet this crossing 15-15? Or would you like to jump to get rid of this structure?
Quote from: ahlidap on Jul 26, 07:15 AM 2018
Anyone read this?
link:s://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=9426.msg78610#msg78610 (link:s://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=9426.msg78610#msg78610)
1. No abusive language or personal attacks. (semi-VIOLATED)
4. Respect other people's opinions. (clearly VIOLATED)
5. Do not inhibit free expression of ideas / criticisms. (clearly VIOLATED)
6. Do not behave in any way that is unjustly unpleasant, or makes participation in the forum unappealing. In other words, be good and respectful to others - don't be a dickhead. Those who are behaving in any unacceptable way will usually be warned first, but if the behavior continues, banning will result. (VIOLATED - well a little subjective)
ouch..
You missed the one about baiting! Deception is the biggest form of abuse there is... evasion is another subtle form of abuse that evades court action too. Small wonder people are confused over the good guys vs. bad guys.
The great thing about GUT and other systems such as repeaters is that there are so many unique ways you can play it. The basis is sound, things have to happen and they happen within the math.
Quote from: Nimo on Jul 26, 07:58 AM 2018
The great thing about GUT and other systems such as repeaters is that there are so many unique ways you can play it. The basis is sound, things have to happen and they happen within the math.
Sure repeats have to happen, but that doesn't equate to edge/profit. Each bet is static and independent of previous bets with proportionately increasing probability and decreasing payout:
1... bet 1
12... bet 1+2
123... bet 1+2+3
etc.
The previous outcomes do not mean anything other than prompting you to make a different kind of static bet based on the past 3 random spins:
bet 1
bet 1+2
bet 1+2+3
The most common cycle length for lines is CL3:
1231
But that doesn't mean that:
betting 1+2+3 is better than betting 4+5+6. Do you know why?
No matter what decisions you make you are still trapped in what is essentially a break even game with added house advantage.
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Jul 26, 08:29 AM 2018
Sure repeats have to happen, but that doesn't equate to edge/profit. Each bet is static and independent of previous bets with proportionately increasing probability and decreasing payout:
1... bet 1
12... bet 1+2
123... bet 1+2+3
etc.
The previous outcomes do not mean anything other than prompting you to make a different kind of static bet based on the past 3 random spins:
bet 1
bet 1+2
bet 1+2+3
The most common cycle length for lines is CL3:
1231
But that doesn't mean that:
betting 1+2+3 is better than betting 4+5+6. Do you know why?
No matter what decisions you make you are still trapped in what is essentially a break even game with added house advantage.
Look at the title of this thread. In the example the numbers chosen were random that repeated. Its important because they repeated. Numbers are there in one of three ways, unhit, hit and repeats. That's it. It all depends on what you do with that info. Some will figure it out for themselves, others will figure it out with help from others,
and some will never figure it out. They quote the math, however it all works within the math so their argument is negated.
Quote from: Nimo on Jul 26, 09:02 AM 2018
Look at the title of this thread. In the example the numbers chosen were random that repeated. Its important because they repeated. Numbers are there in one of three ways, unhit, hit and repeats. That's it. It all depends on what you do with that info. Some will figure it out for themselves, others will figure it out with help from others,
and some will never figure it out. They quote the math, however it all works within the math so their argument is negated.
If there's 2 people at the table then number 15 is number 15 to both players. If they both decide to bet on number 15 and number 15 lands then they both win. Repeats and uniques on the other hand are not fixed outcomes, but artificial, temporary, labels. Depending on at which point you try to identify combinatoric patterns within a past set of random spins, each number could take on either form - "repeat" or "unique" to different players. No matter how you bet numbers with custom "unique" and "repeat" labels the result is always the same: break even and then lose to the house advantage. Therefore, repeats is nothing more than an illusion. It's just a way of keeping track of custom break even events over multiple spins. Till you understand the truth you will continue to be held back by fantasy.
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Jul 26, 09:21 AM 2018
If there's 2 people at the table then number 15 is number 15 to both players. If they both decide to bet on number 15 and number 15 lands then they both win. Repeats and uniques on the other hand are not fixed outcomes, but artificial, temporary, labels. Depending on at which point you try to identify combinatoric patterns within a past set of random spins, each number could take on either form - "repeat" or "unique" to different players. No matter how you bet numbers with custom "unique" and "repeat" labels the result is always the same: break even and then lose to the house advantage. Therefore, repeats is nothing more than an illusion. It's just a way of keeping track of custom break even events over multiple spins. Till you understand the truth you will continue to be held back by fantasy.
My roulette bankroll created by playing repeaters isn't fantasy. Not chump change either Like I said some will see it, some never will. Its all pointless to you anyway Falkor, the world will basically end in a few years according to your apocalyptic thread so no point in trying to figure out this roulette thing anyway.
Quote from: Nimo on Jul 26, 09:35 AM 2018
My roulette bankroll created by playing repeaters isn't fantasy. Not chump change either Like I said some will see it, some never will. Its all pointless to you anyway Falkor, the world will basically end in a few years according to your apocalyptic thread so no point in trying to figure out this roulette thing anyway.
I've seen hundreds of spins go positive - only to turn the other way and end up losing to the house edge - long term guaranteed.
Exactly. The world will not completely end, but there is limited time before the population is reduced drastically and entirely new forms of control implemented for the remaining few. For the next 5 years, the message from the ruling class to us is this:
(link:s://s15.postimg.cc/syuk5wdgr/vlcsnap-2018-07-26-15h24m50s975.png)
(link:s://s15.postimg.cc/b8svkv7ln/vlcsnap-2018-07-26-15h24m53s124.png)
So don't waste that time playing uniques and repeats because you will soon be struggling for food and electricity. Chill out and listen to some good music and watch some good movies, like Donald Trump's favourite:
link:s://:.cbsnews.com/pictures/donald-trumps-favorite-movies/
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Jul 26, 09:21 AM 2018If there's 2 people at the table then number 15 is number 15 to both players. If they both decide to bet on number 15 and number 15 lands then they both win. Repeats and uniques on the other hand are not fixed outcomes, but artificial, temporary, labels. Depending on at which point you try to identify combinatoric patterns within a past set of random spins, each number could take on either form - "repeat" or "unique" to different players. No matter how you bet numbers with custom "unique" and "repeat" labels the result is always the same: break even and then lose to the house advantage. Therefore, repeats is nothing more than an illusion.
falkor, your conclusion doesn't follow. Just because different players observe different spins doesn't mean repeats and uniques are an illusion, it just means they observe different numbers of repeats and uniques which have their own meaning within the number of spins observed by the different players.
I thought I had finished educating you guys about the repeats illusion over at the turbo topic - was trying to get you to think in a different way so you can truly understand:
QuoteSure repeats have to happen, but that doesn't equate to edge/profit. Each bet is static and independent of previous bets with proportionately increasing probability and decreasing payout:
1... bet 1
12... bet 1+2
123... bet 1+2+3
etc.
The previous outcomes do not mean anything other than prompting you to make a different kind of static bet based on the past 3 random spins:
bet 1
bet 1+2
bet 1+2+3
The most common cycle length for lines is CL3:
1231
But that doesn't mean that:
betting 1+2+3 is better than betting 4+5+6. Do you know why?
No matter what decisions you make you are still trapped in what is essentially a break even game with added house advantage.
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Jul 02, 02:38 AM 2018
This is what happens when you bet hot numbers (front runners) on the premise that only they can reach X repeats because they've repeated already:
(link:s://s15.postimg.cc/t8x7eaf63/image.png)
You need a casino with $10K house limits, and it sure doesn't win flat-betting! And this is without any house edge, BV-style...
2nd Dozen repeat below: all overtaken by a sleeper..
1 1 3 3 3
1 1 3 3 3
1 1 3 3 3
3 1 1 2 2 2
2 1 1 2 3 3 3
1 1 2 2 2
1 1 3 3 3
1 1 3 3 3
1 1 2 2 3 3 3
1 1 3 3 2 2 2
1 1 3 3 2 3
1 1 3 3 2 2 3
1 1 3 3 3
1 1 3 2 3 3
1 1 2 3 2 3 3
3 1 1 2 2 2
1 1 2 2 2
3 1 1 2 2 2
1 2 1 3 3 3
1 1 3 3 2 3
1 1 2 2 2
1 1 3 3 3
1 1 2 3 3 3
1 1 2 3 2 2
1 1 2 2 2
1 1 3 3 3
1 1 3 2 2 3 3
1 1 3 3 3
3 1 1 2 2 2
1 2 1 3 2 3 3
1 1 2 2 3 2
1 1 2 2 3 3 3
1 1 3 3 2 2 2
1 1 2 2 2
1 1 3 3 3
2 1 1 3 3 3
1 1 3 3 3
1 1 3 2 2 3 3
There's only so many ways you can play 2 repeats of a dozen based on the front runners. I can bet the front runner till I get the 2nd repeat:
11 1
11 21
11 231
Or I can stop early if I don't get the 2nd repeat in X spins:
11 23
Or I can wait out certain spins or change to a different front runner, etc.
I have tried every possible way of playing 2 repeats, but the long term result is always the same: break even! It doesn't even tilt one side to wins/losses. It's just plain old break even. I have attached a spreadsheet so people can test for themselves based on 1 million spins:
Download dozens2repeats.xlsx... (link:://:.rarekungfumovies.com/dozens2repeats.xlsx)
If we cannot tilt 1 repeat of a dozen and we cannot tilt 2 repeats of a dozen then it follows that the numbers game is also break even.
You are either randomly guessing or trying to follow a previous set of random past spins, so the result is the same.
12... I guess dozen 1+3 and I have a 66% chance of winning.
12... I guess a 1+2 repeat and I have a 66% chance of winning.
I never won the repeat. I won the 66% chance bet - one or more independent static bets. The repeat formed by itself as a natural pattern based on the "unique" labels I chose for 1 and 2. Another player at the table who played the 2 spins before I arrived could have labelled them as a repeat instead of uniques:
1212
We cannot predict repeats/uniques. The wheel doesn't make any distinctions - it's us that places the labels depending on our viewpoint.
I just spun number 7 - dozen 1 again:
1
Now the properties of that dozen 1 has everything to do with whatever past number sequence I decide to put in front of it:
2 1... here it's a unique
12 1... here our 1 is a 1st repeat
1231 1... here our 1 is a 2nd repeat
So it all depends what random past spins you take in order to determine whether something has repeated or not. One man's repeat is another man's unique. Again, cannot be used for prediction.
I'll prove that you cannot predict a repeat:
Each dozen is equally-likely:
1
2
3
Now I can take any 2 unique dozens and put them in front of the above, and I will end up with more chance of a repeat:
1
122
3
1
312
3
So I didn't predict anything - patterns form independent of my prediction
I blindly look back on the marquee and find a number (9) that is dozen 1:
1...
Now I have 33% chance for dozen 1,2 or 3 some 10 spins later...
11...
or
12...
or
13...
However, since 2/3 outcomes don't match the earlier dozen 1, there is a 66% chance the dozen will be different to any past (random) dozen I decide to put in front of the latest dozen:
12...
or
13...
Again, there's 33% chance we can get dozen 1,2 or 3 next spin, but when I put it after 2 previous unique dozens from the past I get a 66% chance of matching one of them - simply by the laws of number sequences (combinatorics) and natural patterns:
121
122
131
133
So the repeat has nothing to do with prediction - it's an illusion that hides the fact we are playing individual static bets - resulting in break even over the long-term.
You can't really compare dozen repeaters to single numbers. 1-2-3-4 may appear in one dozen an 20-20-20-20 in another, each dozen has hit 4 times. Apples and oranges
Quote from: Nimo on Jul 26, 11:19 AM 2018
You can't really compare dozen repeaters to single numbers. 1-2-3-4 may appear in one dozen an 20-20-20-20 in another, each dozen has hit 4 times. Apples and oranges
Of course you can. Each group - halves, dozens, lines, streets, numbers - has to repeat and has proportionate probabilities and payout odds. One is not better than the other since they all result in a break even game with added house advantage. You can even play 72 number roulette because it has nothing to do with 36/7 numbers. It's about unfair payout odds for all single spin bets and all multi-spin events too.
Winkel, first you say the betting rules are freely available, now youre saying theyre secret. Which is it?
Quote from: Steve on Jul 26, 01:01 PM 2018
Winkel, first you say the betting rules are freely available, now youre saying theyre secret. Which is it?
no secrets but tools how to use the rules at best.
It is like the example:
14-14 is a crossing - bet on it
in case of example 1 don´t
in case of example 2 do
in case of example 3 don´t
one of the thieves said I had made contradictions in the rules he just didn´t understand the difference a trot makes.
But what he did understand was: If the rule said don´t bet, then bet the other part of the crossing.
You see there are a lot of details which are not covered by GUTCBA. I think your coder wants/needs to know.
Quote from: Steve on Jul 26, 01:01 PM 2018
Winkel, first you say the betting rules are freely available, now youre saying theyre secret. Which is it?
You always try to find something which proofs I am lying or evasive or contradictionary.
What you don´t see is that GUT is a very elaborated strategy which can´t be explained on single sheet of paper.
Coding would need definitely more than 500$.
You can´t imagine what is in it. But I don´t explain more than the basic rules in public.
As you proofed it is hard to understand the basic crossing definition. 8)
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Jul 26, 10:36 AM 2018
I've seen hundreds of spins go positive - only to turn the other way and end up losing to the house edge - long term guaranteed.
Exactly. The world will not completely end, but there is limited time before the population is reduced drastically and entirely new forms of control implemented for the remaining few. For the next 5 years, the message from the ruling class to us is this:
(link:s://s15.postimg.cc/syuk5wdgr/vlcsnap-2018-07-26-15h24m50s975.png)
(link:s://s15.postimg.cc/b8svkv7ln/vlcsnap-2018-07-26-15h24m53s124.png)
So don't waste that time playing uniques and repeats because you will soon be struggling for food and electricity. Chill out and listen to some good music and watch some good movies, like Donald Trump's favourite:
link:s://:.cbsnews.com/pictures/donald-trumps-favorite-movies/
Falkor you have a lot to learn..
.winkel if you need someone to trust to code excel or rx pm me your email address and i,ll put you in contact...this thread will go the turbo whether you want it or not..
and Falkor your comments above are wrong...you seem to be stuck in turbo scenario...
your charts and explanations are the wrong path to go and a waste of time..you will find no hg this way...
Quote from: 6th-sense on Jul 26, 01:56 PM 2018
Falkor you have a lot to learn..
.winkel if you need someone to trust to code excel or rx pm me your email address and i,ll put you in contact...this thread will go the turbo whether you want it or not..
and Falkor your comments above are wrong...you seem to be stuck in turbo scenario...
your charts and explanations are the wrong path to go and a waste of time..you will find no hg this way...
And your distance stuff is also disproved just from using the 2-repeat spreadsheet. Gaps that are filled with subsequent uniques that go on to form many repeats have equal probability of occurrence based on distance or position, hence no edge. Yet another pretender who likes to tell people he is right and others are wrong without anything to back up what he is saying. Delusion is rife for life.
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Jul 26, 02:14 PM 2018
And your distance stuff is also disproved just from using the 2-repeat spreadsheet. Gaps that are filled with subsequent uniques that go on to form many repeats have equal probability of occurrence based on distance or position, hence no edge. Yet another pretender who likes to tell people he is right and others are wrong without anything to back up what he is saying. Delusion is rife for life.
that was examples..if you actually new how to use the tracker properly and the average 24 out and 12 repeat..you would find the hg..your looking completley in the wrong place..
i,m no pretender..i didn,t give a system in that thread..so i have nothing to back up in that respect..
you cannot say this doesnt happen...
i only gave basic examples what happens...delusion is for people who deny the obvious
ask steve he tells us all the time..the odds
Quote from: 6th-sense on Jul 26, 02:24 PM 2018
that was examples..if you actually new how to use the tracker properly and the average 24 out and 12 repeat..you would find the hg..your looking completley in the wrong place..
i,m no pretender..i didn,t give a system in that thread..so i have nothing to back up in that respect..
you cannot say this doesnt happen...
i only gave basic examples what happens...delusion is for people who deny the obvious
ask steve he tells us all the time..the odds
Nonsense - you are baiting as a defence mechanism without a leg to stand on. I've debunked repeats inside-out in this topic and turbo's topic, and you've responded in denial without addressing any of my explanations whatsoever that so shatters this whole repeats nonsense. Accept that your whole life has been an illusion and move on - or remain an empty shell.
I see we have another debate on the merits of repeaters.
Quote from: 6th-sense on Jul 26, 02:24 PM 2018
that was examples..if you actually new how to use the tracker properly and the average 24 out and 12 repeat..you would find the hg..your looking completley in the wrong place
6th sense are you saying you have a hg?
Quote from: Nimo on Jul 26, 09:02 AM 2018
Look at the title of this thread. In the example the numbers chosen were random that repeated. Its important because they repeated. Numbers are there in one of three ways, unhit, hit and repeats. That's it. It all depends on what you do with that info. Some will figure it out for themselves, others will figure it out with help from others,
and some will never figure it out.
Nimo, I would like to believe that we can gain advantage from repeaters. What makes me reticent to believe it is possible is my own testing. did you see me BASIC program on this thread below?
"TURBO'S REPEATERS SIMULATION."
link:s://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=20147.0
Now it uses a random number generator, but I am of the belief that a fair wheel produces random numbers so this should be ok to use. What I'm saying is, whichever way I permutated betting, be it flat-bet, or 3 units on 3-shows etc, the result was always negative in the long run. Is the missing link to this a maximum 'gap'?
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Jul 26, 02:33 PM 2018
Nonsense - you are baiting as a defence mechanism without a leg to stand on. I've debunked repeats inside-out in this topic and turbo's topic, and you've responded in denial without addressing any of my explanations whatsoever that so shatters this whole repeats nonsense. Accept that your whole life has been an illusion and move on - or remain an empty shell.
lol just becouse you yourself have debunked it does that make it the be all and end all?
the only way you have tried is turbo,s way..chasing repeats...but the great Falkor has spoken...it can,t be done
i,m only pointing you and everyone where they should be looking..
if it offends you thats your problem..
the only illusion here is roulette....
broaden your mind a bit..and think outside the box..not inside the boxes your creating...they are illusions in themselves...thus making your own life an illusion too..
daveylibra...i cannot confirm or deny...plus i never did say i was chasing repeats...
Quote from: 6th-sense on Jul 26, 02:51 PM 2018
lol just becouse you yourself have debunked it does that make it the be all and end all?
the only way you have tried is turbo,s way..chasing repeats...but the great Falkor has spoken...it can,t be done
i,m only pointing you and everyone where they should be looking..
if it offends you thats your problem..
the only illusion here is roulette....
broaden your mind a bit..and think outside the box..not inside the boxes your creating...they are illusions in themselves...thus making your own life an illusion too..
daveylibra...i cannot confirm or deny...plus i never did say i was chasing repeats...
It's not that you're offensive - it's that your replies are counter-productive. You are contributing nothing to this discussion - just baiting and telling us you know best, in order to relieve your suffering whilst recovering from cognitive dissonance brought about through demonstration of repeats being nothing more than an illusion.
Quote from: daveylibra on Jul 26, 02:36 PM 2018Now it uses a random number generator, but I am of the belief that a fair wheel produces random numbers so this should be ok to use. What I'm saying is, whichever way I permutated betting, be it flat-bet, or 3 units on 3-shows etc, the result was always negative in the long run. Is the missing link to this a maximum 'gap'?
There is a missing link to your testing with your code, it's not the way to play repeaters that Turbo plays. Think more outside the box,
Winkle, i need a clear answer to this....
You say your system doesn't change the odds and doesnt need to.
Say if your system required you to bet 18 numbers on a spin. Will you win more often than you would if you bet 18 random numbers?
If the answer is yes, then you do claim to change the odds, and probably didnt understand what "changing odds" means.
If the answer is no, then you are not changing the odds, and your bet selection is no different to betting random numbers.
Its a black and white question. Please give a clear answer.
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Jul 26, 11:11 AM 2018
I thought I had finished educating you guys about the repeats illusion over at the turbo topic - was trying to get you to think in a different way so you can truly understand:
Falknor, what you were doing is nothing like what we're doing.
Quote from: Steve on Jul 26, 05:57 PM 2018
Say if your system required you to bet 18 numbers on a spin. Will you win more often than you would if you bet 18 random numbers?
If the answer is yes, then you do claim to change the odds, and probably didnt understand what "changing odds" means.
If the answer is no, then you are not changing the odds, and your bet selection is no different to betting random numbers.
Its a black and white question. Please give a clear answer.
first of all I don´t bet 18 numbers or more I only 17 numbers or less
I don´t change the odds. the odds are always there so they are fair.
My strategy just tells me when to bet and the odds allow me to win more often than they say.
Your so sticky with the odds and their changing. Forget about it.
If I bet 14 numbers the odds are 14/37. That doesn´t change at all.
But if I lost (virtually) 22 bets out of 37 there´s a good point to start betting.
And if I´ve won 22 bets out of 37 it is a good thing to be careful and eventually start betting the opposite chance of the crossing
(This is an scripted example to show you the structure of the strategy)
Quote from: winkel on Jul 27, 05:43 AM 2018I don´t change the odds. the odds are always there so they are fair.
Quote from: winkel on Jul 27, 05:43 AM 2018My strategy just tells me when to bet and the odds allow me to win more often than they say.
You are incredibly lost. Im not wasting more time on you.
Quote from: Steve on Jul 27, 06:06 AM 2018
You are incredibly lost. Im not wasting more time on you.
But I´m fine there and I win there.
Better to be lost in some distance than stuck on the "changing the odds"
"changing odds"-"changing odds" doesn´t your brain allow you another second thought?
Quote from: WinkelBut if I lost (virtually) 22 bets out of 37 there´s a good point to start betting.
Virtual bets? (Gambler's fallacy.) ::)
Winkel,
How can virtual bets possibly improve your chance of winning?
Quote from: The General on Jul 27, 01:39 PM 2018
Winkel,
How can virtual bets possibly improve your chance of winning?
It changes the odds :twisted:
(be careful: sarcasm)
Quote from: The General on Jul 27, 01:39 PM 2018
Winkel,
How can virtual bets possibly improve your chance of winning?
In the morning I was thinking to myself that virtual bets are a waste of time, but I reckon that since discovering the HG only this afternoon (untested) that virtual bets could be useful whilst traversing various structures; no worries, I'm in the process of creating an idiot's guide to the HG right now over in the parachuting topic. Here's a good question I've devised that I believe leads straight to the HG: why would you play number cycles of 36 numbers, ignoring zero - instead of playing number cycles that include zero? :o :lol: :twisted: :thumbsup: :xd:
Quote from: winkel on Jul 27, 02:20 PM 2018
It changes the odds :twisted:
(be careful: sarcasm)
Typical response when he can't answer. He has only a vague understanding of odds, so I wouldn't expect him to know why pretending to bet makes no difference.
Quote from: winkel on Jul 27, 05:43 AM 2018And if I´ve won 22 bets out of 37 it is a good thing to be careful and eventually start betting the opposite chance of the crossing
Look and you never thought that you won by some natural reason - for example, pockets, where you won, was simply wider, or pockets separator on these number was in some specifical form. So if you change betting to other numbers - you simply go from winning line.... :)
Quote from: Steve on Jul 28, 11:10 PM 2018
Typical response when he can't answer. He has only a vague understanding of odds, so I wouldn't expect him to know why pretending to bet makes no difference.
It´s the kind of answer like yours are. :wink:
And your statement shows a total misunderstanding of probability.
If you take a permanence as ever existing endless stream of number 0 to 37 then your bet-sequence is just a little part of it.
Probability happens despite of you are betting or not.
Probability must/will show a performence which is close to the statistical averages. (even if you cut out some spins which you have bet or watched)
This is the chance to sit out downwaves and bet on high waves.
All the so called rules of probability are man-made. some are true at some times and at other times they are not true.
Man like patterns and some constructed behaviours of the probability but they don´t exist.
There are always 37 pockets left. and even the wheel is biased, there are still 37 pockets and all numbers have the possibilitys tho hit. It doensn´t mean that a biased wheel produces every spin the name result/number, does it?
Even if one (or more numbers) hit overdue, all numbers will have hit after a certain number of spins.
Everything else is Hope.
And you have to decide: Does your behaviour at the table change the odds or not? Either way GUT is on the right way.
Quote from: Bebediktus3 on Jul 29, 06:15 AM 2018
Look and you never thought that you won by some natural reason - for example, pockets, where you won, was simply wider, or pockets separator on these number was in some specifical form. So if you change betting to other numbers - you simply go from winning line.... :)
Think a bit more about GUT.
If there is a biased wheel and some numbers hit more often in which group will they be listed? (hit once or more?)
If my bet on non-hit loses and I change to "hit once or more" do I change to losing or to wining line?
Winkel there are too many mistakes in your post for me to bother. Learn better and stop giving people false hope.
I hoped you had something promising but its clear you're an amateur with fundamental misunderstandings, masquerading as a professional.
Quote from: Steve on Jul 29, 07:33 AM 2018
Winkel there are too many mistakes in your post for me to bother. Learn better and stop giving people false hope.
I hoped you had something promising but its clear you're an amateur with fundamental misunderstandings, masquerading as a professional.
again no arguments nor proof that my claims are wrong.
Just damaging my reputation.
you have to learn. But it needs a brain to learn. thats the conflict.
Quote from: winkel on Jul 29, 07:02 AM 2018If my bet on non-hit loses and I change to "hit once or more" do I change to losing or to wining line?
Depends on what spin you were betting on; you know and i know the further we go into the trot the more chance of >1x
But Prof we see beyond 1/37
Winkel i did explain to you, but you still struggle with the basics. You saw only what you wanted. Im not trying to damage your reputation. To anyone who does understand the basics, you do that yourself.
Quote from: Steve on Jul 29, 08:05 AM 2018
Winkel i did explain to you, but you still struggle with the basics. You saw only what you wanted. Im not trying to damage your reputation. To anyone who does understand the basics, you do that yourself.
You didn´t explain nothing. You just asked again and again: Do you change the odds?
I don´t struggle at all. You are struggling with "changing the odds" you can´t think other ways.
"To anyone who does understand..." typical movement of people with no arguments.
Who are these people "who understand". And what do they understand? If we follow you and the AP-people then nobody understands.
So you don´t have many people to support your argumentation.
Again in your answer: No argument, no proof
Winkel, are you prepared to have a proper discussion about this? No evasion. No responses of yours like "blabla" when the question is too hard. We answer each others questions and be perfectly reasonable. Ok?
Even on the simple point about odds, you claim:
- you dont change odds
- you dont need to change odds
- you just bet when you are more likely to win
One problem with that is if you are betting when you are more likely to win, that is changing odds. But your understanding is so poor you dont understand that. You even made jokes about it which made your inexperience obvious.
No professional would be confused about what odds are, and whether or not their system changed the odds, would they?
Your logic and understanding of statistics is childlike. But one thing at a time...
My question is give me a typical simple sequence of events where your system wins.
For example, when thereare 18 unhits, bet all the unhit on the next spin.... and if you waited for this situation every time, you would win more than you lose.
Im not saying this is your system rule. Im just asking for one common situation, and what you would bet.
Turbo had similar bad understanding and couldnt address direct questions. Then spun utter bullshit trying to get out of a corner. That convinced me he knows he's misleading people. I would to think you really don't know better, but i doubt after all this time you don't. Let's find out.
Odds and sods
Odds never change. It doesn't matter if you use computers, advantage play, bias, VB, systems, etc. The odds will always be 1/37 for straight up single spin plays. What does change are probabilities. Odds that a zero will hit are 1/37, every spin. Probability that the zero hits 37 consecutive times is somewhere north of a trillion.
Personally, I think the arguments are more about probability, odds are consistently 1/37. Probability changes dependence on the bet. True random can give you 37 zeroes in a row with odds still being 1/37 per spin, the probability of that happening is the same as a Victoria
Secret supermodel seeing this post, tracking me down through the forum, knocking on my front door to ask me out.
Same old argument over and over. It's getting old fast. Odd never change, they don't need to. GUT works within the odds. Repeaters work with the Odds. Probability changes, odds don't. You either can't see it as your brain isn't wired to see things in a different light, or you purposely choose to be the naysayer on anything that isn't AP. It's ok some people see things differently. GUT happens, repeaters happen, the combination of the two is amazing.
Quote from: Nimo on Jul 29, 09:08 AM 2018Odds never change. It doesn't matter if you use computers, advantage play, bias, VB, systems, etc. The odds will always be 1/37 for straight up single spin plays. What does change are probabilities. Odds that a zero will hit are 1/37, every spin. Probability that the zero hits 37 consecutive times is somewhere north of a trillion.
It depends on your definition of odds. In sports betting, odds means payout. But is it the probability? No. How can you measure the probability? Realistically you can't.
In roulette, odds are based on the assumption that all numbers are equally likely. Due to physics, they aren't equally likely. Thats the foundation of ap. Probability based on cause and effect is basically ap.
Quote from: Nimo on Jul 29, 09:08 AM 2018True random can give you 37 zeroes in a row with odds still being 1/37 per spin, the probability of that happening is
Many people misunderstand this point. Rare events are pointless and irrelevant. What matters is the discrepancy between odds (frequency of wins) vs payouts. Building systems around rare events doesn't work.
Quote from: Nimo on Jul 29, 09:08 AM 2018Odd never change, they don't need to. GUT works within the odds. Repeaters work with the Odds.
If spins are random, then it's not possible to change odds. Your frequency of wins won't be high enough to overcome unfair payouts.
Understand proper definitions of odds and probabilities. If spins are random, they are the same values. Repeaters don't work because no matter what you do, there payouts are too low. There's no such thing as working within the odds. There is just odds vs payout. Looking at probability only really comes into play if spins aren't random, and then you're getting more into ap.
Quote from: Nimo on Jul 29, 09:08 AM 2018You either can't see it as your brain isn't wired to see things in a different light,
No, i see your understanding, and it's incorrect. I've explained why.
Quote from: Nimo on Jul 29, 09:08 AM 2018GUT happens, repeaters happen, the combination of the two is amazing.
Do you understand why it's essential to "increase accuracy of predictions"? Basically if you only win 1 in 37 tines, but are paid just 35-1, you're being short paid. Getting around that without changing accuracy of predictions is literally impossible, unless you're talking about short term results.
I understand probability, here is an example of how probability increases with GUT 18/19
Spin 1 probability of a hit is 48.6486%
Spin 2 probability of a hit is 73.6303%
Spin 3 probability of a hit is 86.4588%
Spin 4 probability of a hit is 93.0464%
Spin 5 probability of a hit is 96.4292%
Spin 6 probability of a hit is 98.1663%
Spin 7 probability of a hit is 99.0584%
Spin 8 probability of a hit is 99.5164%
Spin 9 probability of a hit is 99.7517%
Spin 10 probability of a hit is 99.8724%
Spin 11 probability of a hit is 99.9345%
Spin 12 probability of a hit is 99.9663%
Spin 13 probability of a hit is 99.9827%
Spin 14 probability of a hit is 99.9911%
Spin 15 probability of a hit is 99.9954%
Spin 16 probability of a hit is 99.9976%
Spin 17 probability of a hit is 99.9987%
Spin 18 probability of a hit is 99.9993%
Spin 19 probability of a hit is 99.9996%
Spin 20 probability of a hit is 99.9998%
Spin 21 probability of a hit is 99.9999%
Spin 22 probability of a hit is 99.9999%
Goes on infinitely, depending on how many digits you want to round to before it reaches 100%.
These are probabilities, not odds. Not payouts. Knowing those three, you can formulate a strategy to profit more than you lose, consistently. No computers, no VB, no wobbly wheels. All within the math.
Odds and probabilities seem to be used in different ways and it can get confusing. I usually think of odds as payouts, that's what it means in sports betting anyway.
Quote from: Nimo on Jul 29, 09:08 AM 2018Odds never change. It doesn't matter if you use computers, advantage play, bias, VB, systems, etc. The odds will always be 1/37 for straight up single spin plays. What does change are probabilities.
I think you mean the payouts here. The payout for a single number is 35 to 1 and that is fixed and never changes, but the probability of a single number hitting can change. Suppose the number is biased? how can it then have a probability to hit of 1/37?
Quote from: Joe on Jul 29, 11:57 AM 2018
Odds and probabilities seem to be used in different ways and it can get confusing. I usually think of odds as payouts, that's what it means in sports betting anyway.
I think you mean the payouts here. The payout for a single number is 35 to 1 and that is fixed and never changes, but the probability of a single number hitting can change. Suppose the number is biased? how can it then have a probability to hit of 1/37?
I did say probability changes, odds don't. The odds are 1/37 or -2.7%. That doesn't change. Never will unless they add or delete numbers from the wheel.
Quote from: Nimo on Jul 29, 11:26 AM 2018No computers, no VB, no wobbly wheels. All within the math.
Are you the millionaire ?
Quote from: Bebediktus3 on Jul 29, 12:09 PM 2018
Are you the millionaire ?
I made/make my fortune sports betting, I work on roulette as hobby, but very profitable one so far.
Quote from: Nimo on Jul 29, 12:07 PM 2018The odds are 1/37 or -2.7%. That doesn't change.
But if you have an edge it must, for you anyway. If you only win once per 37 spins on average how do you make a profit when the payout is fixed at 35-1? If you can manage to win once per 30 spins then you have increased your win rate relative to the payout, so you will make a profit.
Quote from: Joe on Jul 29, 12:40 PM 2018
But if you have an edge it must, for you anyway. If you only win once per 37 spins on average how do you make a profit when the payout is fixed at 35-1? If you can manage to win once per 30 spins then you have increased your win rate relative to the payout, so you will make a profit.
Here is a full coverage system, every single number on the board is covered. The odds are still 1/37, the only difference in the profit is a progression. Some numbers have more on them than others. It's dynamic as well, the progression moves and does not stay on the same numbers equally. This doesn't improve bet selection, doesn't need to, doesn't change the odds. Only variable is variance of the numbers coming in randomly and amount of progression going on numbers randomly.
(link:://:.pichost.org/images/2018/07/29/temp_592621.png) (link:://:.pichost.org/image/2jCyB)
Odds never change.
Quote from: Nimo on Jul 29, 11:26 AM 2018
I understand probability, here is an example of how probability increases with GUT 18/19
Spin 1 probability of a hit is 48.6486%
Spin 2 probability of a hit is 73.6303%
Spin 3 probability of a hit is 86.4588%
Spin 4 probability of a hit is 93.0464%
Spin 5 probability of a hit is 96.4292%
Spin 6 probability of a hit is 98.1663%
Spin 7 probability of a hit is 99.0584%
Spin 8 probability of a hit is 99.5164%
Spin 9 probability of a hit is 99.7517%
Spin 10 probability of a hit is 99.8724%
Spin 11 probability of a hit is 99.9345%
Spin 12 probability of a hit is 99.9663%
Spin 13 probability of a hit is 99.9827%
Spin 14 probability of a hit is 99.9911%
Spin 15 probability of a hit is 99.9954%
Spin 16 probability of a hit is 99.9976%
Spin 17 probability of a hit is 99.9987%
Spin 18 probability of a hit is 99.9993%
Spin 19 probability of a hit is 99.9996%
Spin 20 probability of a hit is 99.9998%
Spin 21 probability of a hit is 99.9999%
Spin 22 probability of a hit is 99.9999%
Goes on infinitely, depending on how many digits you want to round to before it reaches 100%.
These are probabilities, not odds. Not payouts. Knowing those three, you can formulate a strategy to profit more than you lose, consistently.
No you can't.
1. You're not exploiting any defects in the wheel.
2. You're not making a prediction based on the position of the ball in relation to the speed of the rotor.
3. The same number of pockets remain on the wheel from one spin to the next. This means that the odds don't change from one spin to the next... just because some numbers have or have not hit.The GUT is a poorly conceived idea not grounded in common sense and logic.
Quote from: The General on Jul 29, 01:41 PM 2018
No you can't.
1. You're not exploiting any defects in the wheel.
2. You're not making a prediction based on the position of the ball in relation to the speed of the rotor.
3. The same number of pockets remain on the wheel from one spin to the next. This means that the odds don't change from one spin to the next... just because some numbers have or have not hit.
The GUT is a poorly conceived idea not grounded in common sense and logic.
I never exploit defects in the wheel, not needed.
I don't watch the rotor or any other part of the wheel, I'd rather look at the cute blonde next to me.
I said multiple times, the odds don't change. Probability does.
Quote from: Nimo on Jul 29, 01:23 PM 2018
Here is a full coverage system, every single number on the board is covered. The odds are still 1/37, the only difference in the profit is a progression. Some numbers have more on them than others. It's dynamic as well, the progression moves and does not stay on the same numbers equally. This doesn't improve bet selection, doesn't need to, doesn't change the odds. Only variable is variance of the numbers coming in randomly and amount of progression going on numbers randomly.
(link:://:.pichost.org/images/2018/07/29/temp_592621.png) (link:://:.pichost.org/image/2jCyB)
Odds never change.
ODDS DONT CHANGEThis could continue on and on......sigh
(link:://:.pichost.org/images/2018/07/29/temp_156371.png) (link:://:.pichost.org/image/2jIwl)
Why did you play 73 spins when you could play just one? ::)
Quote from: The General on Jul 29, 01:51 PM 2018
Why did you play 73 spins when you could play just one? ::)
I grew up in the seventies, I like the music from 1973 8)
Quote from: Nimo on Jul 29, 01:46 PM 2018I said multiple times, the odds don't change. Probability does.
Odd and probabilities are just different ways of saying the same thing. Odd are expressed as ratios, so a probability of 80% is the same as 0.75 / (1 - 0.75) = 3, or 3 to 1. Odds are the ratio of probabilities P(x) / not P(x).
Quote from: Joe on Jul 29, 02:18 PM 2018so a probability of 80% is
That should be 75%. Why does the number eight come out as a "cool" smiley?
Quote from: Joe on Jul 29, 02:18 PM 2018
Odd and probabilities are just different ways of saying the same thing. Odd are expressed as ratios, so a probability of 80% is the same as 0.75 / (1 - 0.75) = 3, or 3 to 1. Odds are the ratio of probabilities P(x) / not P(x).
From the internet:
Probability and odds are two basic statistic terms to describe the likeliness that an event will occur. They are often used interchangeably in causal conversation or even in published material. However, they are not mathematically equivalent because they are looking at likeliness in different contexts.
Probability that I will die 100%. The odds that it happens today 50/50, either I do or don't.
Quote from: Nimo on Jul 29, 02:30 PM 2018
From the internet:
Probability and odds are two basic statistic terms to describe the likeliness that an event will occur. They are often used interchangeably in causal conversation or even in published material. However, they are not mathematically equivalent because they are looking at likeliness in different contexts.
Probability that I will die 100%. The odds that it happens today 50/50, either I do or don't.
It's all semantics anyway. I'm not a math major, I just use common sense, things happen and they happen within whatever math this is.
Quote from: Nimo on Jul 29, 01:46 PM 2018I said multiple times, the odds don't change. Probability does.
That's right, but what's confusing is you're saying the "odds" are 1/37. In sports betting and gambling in general, the odds usually means the payouts. Bookie's odds change but not in roulette, each winning # is paid 35-1 which equates to a probability of 1/36.
Quote from: Steve on Jul 29, 08:40 AM 2018
Winkel, are you prepared to have a proper discussion about this? .....
I am since my first post in this thread
But your understanding is so poor you dont understand that. You even made jokes about it which made your inexperience obvious.
But do you think this and the following sentences are kind of a proper discussion?
No professional would be confused about what odds are, and whether or not their system changed the odds, would they?
Your logic and understanding of statistics is childlike. But one thing at a time...
Winkel you are avoiding the questions again
Quote from: Steve on Jul 29, 08:40 AM 2018
....
My question is give me a typical simple sequence of events where your system wins.
For example, when thereare 18 unhits, bet all the unhit on the next spin.... and if you waited for this situation every time, you would win more than you lose.
...
this is what you didn´t see nor accept.
19 unhit vs 18 hit (as an example only)
first point this crossing could appear is after spin 18. 18 different numbers (pockets) have hit no repeater.
19 unhit vs 17 hit and 1 double hit is first after spin 19
19 unhit vs 16 hit and two double hits is first after spin 20
and so on with all the variances with 3xhit 4xhit within any mixed possbilities.
19 unhit and any combination of 1xhit, 2xhits, 3x hits and so on is seen until now latest at spin 42(after spin 41).
The odds are always the same 19/37 for the unhit.
But don´t you think that are are combinations of 19/37 and several other hit pockets where probability to hit is better than odds tell?
Don´t you think that there are reasons that can tell me the next spin one of 19 unhit will hit?
Quote from: Joe on Jul 29, 02:56 PM 2018
That's right, but what's confusing is you're saying the "odds" are 1/37. In sports betting and gambling in general, the odds usually means the payouts. Bookie's odds change but not in roulette, each winning # is paid 35-1 which equates to a probability of 1/36.
Odds are 1/37, there are 37 pockets and the ball can only land in one, the odds of the ball landing in a pocket are 1/37. The payout is 35:1, the probability is A/37^N Where A is the amount of numbers and N is the spins
12 numbers in 1 spin has a probability of a hit of =-(((25/37)^1)-1) which equals 32.4324%
12 numbers in 2 spins has a probability of a hit =-(((25/37)^2)-1) which equals 54.3462%
and so on.
This is how my mind sees it.
Quote from: Steve on Jul 29, 03:01 PM 2018
Winkel you are avoiding the questions again
for the purpose of a proper discussion pls stop these rethorical tricks.
Quote from: Nimo on Jul 29, 03:11 PM 2018
Odds are 1/37, there are 37 pockets and the ball can only land in one, the odds of the ball landing in a pocket are 1/37. The payout is 35:1, the probability is A/37^N Where A is the amount of numbers and N is the spins
12 numbers in 1 spin has a probability of a hit of =-(((25/37)^1)-1) which equals 32.4324%
12 numbers in 2 spins has a probability of a hit =-(((25/37)^2)-1) which equals 54.3462%
and so on.
This is how my mind sees it.
AP-Players denie to know about conditional probability.
Quote from: Nimo on Jul 29, 01:46 PM 2018
I never exploit defects in the wheel, not needed.
I don't watch the rotor or any other part of the wheel, I'd rather look at the cute blonde next to me.
I said multiple times, the odds don't change. Probability does.
Repciprocal of probability are odds. And vice versa. Perfect random single zero wheel has 1/37 chance for each pocket. Biased one will range from 0.x/37 to 1.x/37. All dividends add up to 37. So your statement is wrong!
Quote from: Nimo on Jul 29, 03:11 PM 2018
Odds are 1/37, there are 37 pockets and the ball can only land in one, the odds of the ball landing in a pocket are 1/37. The payout is 35:1, the probability is A/37^N Where A is the amount of numbers and N is the spins
12 numbers in 1 spin has a probability of a hit of =-(((25/37)^1)-1) which equals 32.4324%
12 numbers in 2 spins has a probability of a hit =-(((25/37)^2)-1) which equals 54.3462%
and so on.
This is how my mind sees it.
Nimo, it appears you are saying, within a group of spins, the more numbers you bet, and the more spins you bet on, the lower the probability you wont get a win. Is this correct?
Quote from: winkel on Jul 29, 03:09 PM 2018But don´t you think that are are combinations of 19/37 and several other hit pockets where probability to hit is better than odds tell?
If you are betting more numbers, then your probabability of betting on the winning number will be higher.but it makes no difference because there is no connection between previous spins. You're still left with the same probability for each independent bet, with the same unfair payouts.
You are confusing what conditional probability is. You are incorrectly assuming past spins change the probability of future spins. Instead, you appear to be looking at the varying amount of numbers you bet, and for how many spins you bet.
The reality is you dont have a series of clever connected bets. You just have a mess of different bets on different spins, with each unique bet having its own probability of hitting, and the unfair payout.
The wheel doesnt care when you think something is more likely.
Another example hich explains the idea of gut but is no gut betting point.
I have watched about 9200 roulette sequences.
After spin 10 there were 2431 sequences with no repeaters.
After spin 13 there were 817 sequences with no repeater left.
That means:
If I bet in spin 11 and 12 and 13 I have a chance of a win of about 66%
My odds change with every spin: against me:for me 27:10 ; 26:11 ; 25:12
You see my odds are not higher but increasing
I bet max/max loss (10+11+12) 33 units
possible wins: spin 11 net win 25; spin 12 net win 14; spin 13 net win 2
Quote from: Steve on Jul 29, 03:46 PM 2018
You are confusing what conditional probability is. You are incorrectly assuming past spins change the probability of future spins.
The wheel doesnt care when you think something is more likely.
The wheel is a dead material. It is wrong to give it intelligence and emotions and things like memory. It just doesn´t know what it is doing. And it doesn´t know about statistics and conditional probability.
Therefore it can´t do anything against me nor for me.
So any argument with "the wheel has... , cares,,, does" is an invalid argument.
So if I calculate with conditional probability I have an advantage
Quote from: Steve on Jul 29, 03:35 PM 2018
Nimo, it appears you are saying, within a group of spins, the more numbers you bet, and the more spins you bet on, the lower the probability you wont get a win. Is this correct?
No, that's not what I'm saying, take this sample for GUT 18/19
Spin 1 probability of a hit is 48.6486%
Spin 2 probability of a hit is 73.6303%
Spin 3 probability of a hit is 86.4588%
Spin 4 probability of a hit is 93.0464%
Spin 5 probability of a hit is 96.4292%
Spin 6 probability of a hit is 98.1663%
Spin 7 probability of a hit is 99.0584%
Spin 8 probability of a hit is 99.5164%
Spin 9 probability of a hit is 99.7517%
Spin 10 probability of a hit is 99.8724%
Spin 11 probability of a hit is 99.9345%
Spin 12 probability of a hit is 99.9663%
Spin 13 probability of a hit is 99.9827%
Spin 14 probability of a hit is 99.9911%
Spin 15 probability of a hit is 99.9954%
Spin 16 probability of a hit is 99.9976%
Spin 17 probability of a hit is 99.9987%
Spin 18 probability of a hit is 99.9993%
Spin 19 probability of a hit is 99.9996%
Spin 20 probability of a hit is 99.9998%
Spin 21 probability of a hit is 99.9999%
Spin 22 probability of a hit is 99.9999%
Playing to hit 18 numbers to go to 19, on the first spin you chance to win is 48.64%, by spin 8 your chance of a win is 99.51%, these are probabilities, they can never go to a complete 100%. The chance at spin 22 is 99.9999%, but it can still lose, however the percentages are in your favour. The probability equation I show is just the numbers exponentially going toward their mean.
Quote from: Steve on Jul 29, 03:46 PM 2018
If you are betting more numbers, then your probabability of betting on the winning number will be higher.but it makes no difference because there is no connection between previous spins. You're still left with the same probability for each independent bet, with the same unfair payouts.
This is correct for the very next spin. But only for the very next spin. It is wrong for all further spins.
Quote from: Steve on Jul 29, 03:46 PM 2018
You are confusing what conditional probability is. You are incorrectly assuming past spins change the probability of future spins. Instead, you appear to be looking at the varying amount of numbers you bet, and for how many spins you bet.
The reality is you dont have a series of clever connected bets. You just have a mess of different bets on different spins, with each unique bet having its own probability of hitting, and the unfair payout.
The wheel doesnt care when you think something is more likely.
Is this what you understand under "proper discussion"?
It is no discussion it is just saying
NO or
you are wrong but no arguments.
and of course the same old song of "changing odds" and "37 pockets"
Guys,
You can't side step probability just by observing it on the side lines. (Gambler's fallacy.)
Regardless of how many numbers have hit or have not hit, the number of pockets on the wheel still determines he probability of winning. Why is this so hard for the KTF and GUT folks to comprehend? ::)
Quote from: winkel on Jul 29, 04:38 PM 2018
Is this what you understand under "proper discussion"?
It is no discussion it is just saying NO or you are wrong but no arguments.
and of course the same old song of "changing odds" and "37 pockets"
I already explained it but lets try another way.
Using your same example as before, please explain exactly what you bet, what you expect your probability of winning is on each of the next spins, and why.I only need a clear and simple example. Should be easy for you. Dont go on about how i always talk about odds blabla. Theres an important part here.
Quote from: Steve on Jul 29, 05:23 PM 2018
Using your same example as before, please explain exactly what you bet, what you expect your probability of winning is on each of the next spins, and why.
I gave 2 examples which one do you refer to?
Quote from: The General on Jul 29, 04:48 PM 2018the number of pockets on the wheel still determines he probability of winning
"Odds are 1/37, there are 37 pockets and the ball can only land in one, the odds of the ball landing in a pocket are 1/37"
We agree! The probability that the ball will land in one of the pockets is 99.99999999999%, you could get a croupier that is pissed off that you show up at the table, and fires off the ball so hard that it slingshots around the wheel and takes off into the cleavage of the blonde that I'm standing beside. So it can't be a perfect 100%
Quote from: winkel on Jul 29, 05:32 PM 2018
I gave 2 examples which one do you refer to?
Use whichever is simplest
Nimo, while the mention of perky boobs dellights us all, your post doesnt addressanything relevant.
Perhaps you can also answer the same questions i asked winkel. If we follow logical discussion im sure youll see gut has no merit, at all.
Quote from: winkel on Jul 29, 03:54 PM 2018
Another example hich explains the idea of gut but is no gut betting point.
I have watched about 9200 roulette sequences.
After spin 10 there were 2431 sequences with no repeaters.
After spin 13 there were 817 sequences with no repeater left.
That means:
If I bet in spin 11 and 12 and 13 I have a chance of a win of about 66%
My odds change with every spin: against me:for me 27:10 ; 26:11 ; 25:12
You see my odds are not higher but increasing
I bet max/max loss (10+11+12) 33 units
possible wins: spin 11 net win 25; spin 12 net win 14; spin 13 net win 2
I will take this.
I watch a trot and after spin 10 there is 27 unhit 10 hit once and no repeater.
In the past I watched this situation several times.
the results for spin 11 :
bet 10 numbers odds 10/37 wins 3 losses 7
statistical results should be 6 wins 4 losses
Expectation: in the following same situations it should turn to 14 wins and 7 losses (7 losses are already there)
The expectation will not appear, that means I don´t expect 11 wins in a row.
But I can expect more wins than losses in the next spins-
If I lose this bet in spin 11 I do the same calculation for spin 12.
If in spin 12 There are 7 wins and 3 losses. I don´t bet on spin 12.
(scripted example - it has nothing to do with reality)
additional example:
17-10
16-11
15-12
14-13
I don´t bet this crossing
14-17
14-16
14-15
14-14
I do bet this crossing
additionally I watch in which spin this happens
It makes a difference if it appears in spin 25 or in spin 44
Quote from: Steve on Jul 29, 06:08 PM 2018
Nimo, while the mention of perky boobs dellights us all, your post doesnt addressanything relevant.
You should learn to distinguish between opinion and argument. Your sentence is only opinion no proof no argument.
No proper nor logical discussion
Quote from: winkel on Jul 29, 06:13 PM 2018
I will take this.
I watch a trot and after spin 10 there is 27 unhit 10 hit once and no repeater.
In the past I watched this situation several times.
the results for spin 11 :
bet 10 numbers odds 10/37 wins 3 losses 7
statistical results should be 6 wins 4 losses
Expectation: in the following same situations it should turn to 14 wins and 7 losses (7 losses are already there)
The expectation will not appear, that means I don´t expect 11 wins in a row.
But I can expect more wins than losses in the next spins-
If I lose this bet in spin 11 I do the same calculation for spin 12.
If in spin 12 There are 7 wins and 3 losses. I don´t bet on spin 12.
(scripted example - it has nothing to do with reality)
additional example:
17-10
16-11
15-12
14-13
I don´t bet this crossing
14-17
14-16
14-15
14-14
I do bet this crossing
additionally I watch in which spin this happens
It makes a difference if it appears in spin 25 or in spin 44
Numbers that have not hit are no more likely to hit than numbers that have hit on the next spin or the next series of spins. ::)
The trot is worthless. Again, look down and count the number of pockets on the wheel at each spin if you don't believe me.
Quote from: The General on Jul 29, 06:21 PM 2018
Numbers that have not hit are no more likely than numbers that have hit to hit on the next spin or the next series of spins. ::)
You won´t understand: I don´t talk about number hit in the last spin and I don´t talk about one single number that will hit in the next spin.
I use to think until next year. you can only think until the next second
Quote from: winkel on Jul 29, 06:17 PM 2018
You should learn to distinguish between opinion and argument. Your sentence is only opinion no proof no argument.
No proper nor logical discussion
Ok i take it back. Not everyone finds delight in perky boobs.
Ill address your example later.
Quote from: winkel on Jul 29, 06:24 PM 2018
You won´t understand: I don´t talk about number hit in the last spin and I don´t talk about one single number that will hit in the next spin.
I use to think until next year. you can only think until the next second
FYI, you can only bet on one spin at a time. If you can't change the probability of winning on the next spin, then you can't change it in the long run either. The same is true when betting on groups of numbers,
Quote from: The General on Jul 29, 06:27 PM 2018
FYI, you can only bet on one spin at a time. If you can't change the probability of winning on the next spin, then you can't change it in the long run either. The same is true when betting on groups of numbers,
Somewhere, down the track, over the rainbow, one spin jumps out with a higher probability of winning. We dont know which one, until it spins and we won. And THATs when the probability changed.
With that logic, every player changed the probability when they have won.
Quote from: The General on Jul 29, 06:27 PM 2018
FYI, you can only bet on one spin at a time. ,
Jesus, this is a completely new information for me.
And what is if I bet several times the next single spin.
If I bet the numbers 1 to 10 will they never appear? Not in the next spin and not inte following spin and not in the third spin I bet them and not in the 1359th spin? Never ever again will these 10 numbers hit? They will never ever have a probability to hit?
LOL....the dream team, team up to run ol' Winkel outa'town
(link:://:.pichost.org/images/2018/07/29/temp_849300.png) (link:://:.pichost.org/image/2jqdS)
QuoteIf I bet the numbers 1 to 10 will they never appear? Not in the next spin and not inte following spin and not in the third spin I bet them and not in the 1359th spin? Never ever again will these 10 numbers hit? They will never ever have a probability to hit?
The payout will always be short of the probability of winning for your 10 numbers, regardless of how long they go with or without hitting.
If your 10 numbers have not hit after 30 spins, then the probability of them winning on the next spin is still the same as it would be if they had hit. Again, just count the number of pockets that remain on the wheel at each spin if you don't believe me.
Quote from: Turner on Jul 29, 06:55 PM 2018
LOL....the dream team, team up to run ol' Winkel outa'town
(link:://:.pichost.org/images/2018/07/29/temp_849300.png) (link:://:.pichost.org/image/2jqdS)
Nobody is trying to run Winkel out of town. We are attacking the fallacies, not the poster.
When you see people being misled.....say nothing. It might upset people.
Quote from: The General on Jul 29, 07:08 PM 2018
Nobody is trying to run Winkel out of town. We are attacking the fallacies, not the poster.
what a load of Bollocks....lol
Quote from: Turner on Jul 29, 07:38 PM 2018
what a load of Bollocks....lol
Is it all "poor winkel" if he has been misleading people? Neither me or caleb give a crap about winkel's preferences, and this is not in any way personal.
How about we just get back to what matters?
i have a philosophy.....its sorta of like politics and the media
when the "big wigs" all get together to attack one person and said person is not even trying to push their ways on you, that means its likely that there is merit here.
the puhers in this case are steve and caled with winkel on the defense
i hate to break it to them....but I am pretty certain Turbo and Winkel do just fine.......
their own personal agendas get in the way
Quote from: Nimo on Jul 29, 04:02 PM 2018take this sample for GUT 18/19
Spin 1 probability of a hit is 48.6486%
Spin 2 probability of a hit is 73.6303%
Spin 3 probability of a hit is 86.4588%
Spin 4 probability of a hit is 93.0464%
Spin 5 probability of a hit is 96.4292%
Spin 6 probability of a hit is 98.1663%
Spin 7 probability of a hit is 99.0584%
Spin 8 probability of a hit is 99.5164%
Spin 9 probability of a hit is 99.7517%
Spin 10 probability of a hit is 99.8724%
Spin 11 probability of a hit is 99.9345%
Spin 12 probability of a hit is 99.9663%
Spin 13 probability of a hit is 99.9827%
Spin 14 probability of a hit is 99.9911%
Spin 15 probability of a hit is 99.9954%
Spin 16 probability of a hit is 99.9976%
Spin 17 probability of a hit is 99.9987%
Spin 18 probability of a hit is 99.9993%
Spin 19 probability of a hit is 99.9996%
Spin 20 probability of a hit is 99.9998%
Spin 21 probability of a hit is 99.9999%
Spin 22 probability of a hit is 99.9999%
Nimo, you gave some very specific probabilities for individual spins.
Please give precise clear details on how you calculated these.
Quote from: RouletteGhost on Jul 29, 07:50 PM 2018its sorta of like politics and the media
Nope, its fact vs fiction. You dont understand, its simple. Caleb and I get a little itchy when we see people spreading what is essentially "harmful bullshit", which to any reasonably educated and logical person is obvious.
Quote from: RouletteGhost on Jul 29, 07:50 PM 2018when the "big wigs" all get together to attack one person and said person is not even trying to push their ways on you, that means its likely that there is merit here.
Really, really bad logic. According to you, any questioning of logic means there is likely merit. Pay attention, you might learn what motivates caleb and I to waste our time is distaste for complete hogwash, and making the truth clear. Please stop distracting the conversation.
caleb has two agendas
1) be a condescending jerk because he gets off on it
2) scout the forums for members who will look at wheels for him
he does not REALLY care
Quote from: RouletteGhost on Jul 29, 07:58 PM 2018
caled has two agendas
1) be a condescending jerk because he gets off on it
2) scout the forums for members who will look at wheels for him
he does not REALLY care
Geez Ghost,
That's pretty harsh. I don't hate or have an agenda against anybody here.
By the way I'll be in town next week. First I have to meet Turbo early in the week...I think at Parx or somewhere near there. :D
What about my steak dinner that you promised me?
Quote from: RouletteGhost on Jul 29, 07:58 PM 2018be a condescending jerk because he gets off on it
Yes he can be. But that's not the full story. He has at least what is really not rare or unique knowledge (I'm referring to just the basics of roulette, nothing else). This knowledge, while fundamental and critical, is only rare on gambling forums.
Like me, he gets irritated when he sees flat Earthers who JUST DONT GET IT. They are running in circles bumping into each other, when all they need to do is just learn some of the basics and do proper testing. So he initially tries to help, and then gets attacked.
Thats because people take it personally when you tell them they're wrong. Then rather than hit back by calling them names, he responds by toying with them.
He doesnt start as a c***. But we all know he can be one to the point of trolling. He is not trolling here. What he does elsewhere is not my concern. He is allowed to be a little smug. Its not against the rules. Understand he takes a lot more heat than he deserves. I know you dont see it that way, but perhaps you would if you understood what he was saying.
Now please, let's get back to what matters.
Quote from: Steve on Jul 29, 07:48 PM 2018
How about we just get back to what matters?
to who exactly? Seems to be just 2 people it really, really matters to.
Seems no one gives a shit when you look at all the new posts.
Why Winkel? Why are you both NEVER in Proofreaders posts. Thats all fallacy isnt it?
because its a threat to what they do
IN MY OPINION
you can tell me "you dont understand" but its my opinion
i believe methods like KTF and GUT help a player win by having more wins than losses...without changing the odds or math
You're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.
Quote from: RouletteGhost on Jul 29, 08:20 PM 2018
because its a threat to what they do
IN MY OPINION
you can tell me "you dont understand" but its my opinion
well, for me, its a very naive way to communicate
Firstly, Steve has a very informative website on odds and payouts and computers. Its very well put together.
The URL is there for all to see, and if they want to go see it they can.
Ive seen nothing from Caleb, just some bad book he wrote in Crayon that ended up as recycled porridge.
Think it was called "Paper Pulp Fiction"
But when you keep on at people and invade their right to believe what they want to believe, you become a bully, or a troll, a Mormon , or the worse of the worse....a Vegan.
(link:://:.pichost.org/images/2018/07/29/temp_429312.png) (link:://:.pichost.org/image/2jZTp)
whats been done to winkel is nothing short of bullying
they use outside forums to constantly mock winkel
and for the most part winkel has been absent...its blatant....
we see it
going to those lengths to attack a method....hmmmmmmm
Quote from: Turner on Jul 29, 08:18 PM 2018Why Winkel?
Until recently, I knew nothing about his strategies. Of course I knew of him though.
Quote from: Turner on Jul 29, 08:18 PM 2018Why are you both NEVER in Proofreaders posts.
Is he claiming to have a HG? Not that I'm aware of. What I see from proofreaders is he posts a lot of systems and results. And yes his systems all make the same fundamental mistakes. But at least when he finds the system doesn't work, he says so.
Unfortunately proofreaders goes in circles and needs to understand why his approaches arent working. Or they "appear" to work for a while, then reality hits. If you chose 10 random systems, perhaps one of them will perform significantly better. That doesn't mean this system is better. It just means over whatever spins you played, the spins worked well for the system. But continue testing and you find the truth.
Quote from: RouletteGhost on Jul 29, 08:20 PM 2018i believe methods like KTF and GUT help a player win by having more wins than losses...without changing the odds or math
Winning more than losing IS changing the odds. That's exactly what makes "winning more than losing" possible, excluding lucky and short-term wins especially with progression. But Winkel is talking about flat betting.
Consider this....
You bet on a coin toss, with a 50% probability of winning. You bet $1 on each toss.
When you lose, you lose your $1.
When you win, you are paid $0.90 + your original $1 bet.
Even when you win, you are paid short. So how can you ever stay ahead?
You could try progression, but all that does is vary the amount you risk on each toss. You could get lucky and win big, OR you could lose even more. There is no escaping the unfair payout (house edge)... UNLESS you win significantly more than 50% of the time. And that's what "increasing the accuracy of predictions" is.
I just wasted more time explaining fundamentals again. Time I should have spent addressing winkels post.
Quote from: Nimo on Jul 29, 05:36 PM 2018
"Odds are 1/37, there are 37 pockets and the ball can only land in one, the odds of the ball landing in a pocket are 1/37"
We agree! The probability that the ball will land in one of the pockets is 99.99999999999%, you could get a croupier that is pissed off that you show up at the table, and fires off the ball so hard that it slingshots around the wheel and takes off into the cleavage of the blonde that I'm standing beside. So it can't be a perfect 100%
Ha! We agree!
Quote from: Turner on Jul 29, 08:18 PM 2018
Why Winkel?
Why not? I don't care who writes bad info. I'll point it out from time to time as I see it.
Again, I don't have anything against Winkel. I'm not attacking the poster. ::)
Quote from: The General on Jul 29, 08:40 PM 2018I'm not attacking the poster.
Dont you mean "forumtards"
Caleb isnt allowed to use that term here. He understands the rules. What he does on other forums is not my concern. We are wasting time here.
Quote from: winkel on Jul 29, 06:13 PM 2018I watch a trot and after spin 10 there is 27 unhit 10 hit once and no repeater.
Ok we start with a sequence of 10 spins, with 10 unique numbers like:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Quote from: winkel on Jul 29, 06:13 PM 2018In the past I watched this situation several times.
the results for spin 11 :
bet 10 numbers odds 10/37 wins 3 losses 7
statistical results should be 6 wins 4 losses
How many spins are you betting? 10 numbers per spin? Your explanations are really as clear as mud. Please be more specific.
Quote from: winkel on Jul 29, 06:13 PM 2018If I lose this bet in spin 11 I do the same calculation for spin 12.
What same calculations? All you've done so far is observed 10 spins, but you havent explained what you bet and why. You explained what results you got, a few times. How is that proof of anything except what might happen?
Quote from: winkel on Jul 29, 06:13 PM 2018bet 10 numbers odds 10/37 wins 3 losses 7
statistical results should be 6 wins 4 losses
Please give thought to your grammar, so it makes sense. I understand english may not be your first language, but you are speaking Chinese to me. Without me fully understanding what you are saying before you say what you're saying, your explanations are ambiguous and not specific.
Quote from: winkel on Jul 29, 06:13 PM 2018additional example:
17-10
16-11
15-12
14-13
I don´t bet this crossing
Why not?
Quote from: winkel on Jul 29, 06:13 PM 2018additional example:
14-17
14-16
14-15
14-14
I do bet this crossing
Why? And exactly how would you bet the crossing?
Quote from: winkel on Jul 29, 06:13 PM 2018additionally I watch in which spin this happens
It makes a difference if it appears in spin 25 or in spin 44
Why does it make a difference?
Winkel, I'm reading explanations from other people which make a lot more sense. The problem with that is they are not directly from you. Your explanations would be a nightmare to a coder because they are vague and not specific. But could you please address my questions. And please be very careful and clear with your explanations.
@Winkel
Are you able to develop algorithms? All crossing fail. Even if you use permutations and combinatorics on them. So I wonder how you do your magic?
Quote from: winkel on Jul 26, 01:54 PM 2018You always try to find something which proofs I am lying or evasive or contradictionary.
What you don´t see is that GUT is a very elaborated strategy which can´t be explained on single sheet of paper.
Coding would need definitely more than 500$.
You can´t imagine what is in it. But I don´t explain more than the basic rules in public.
As you proofed it is hard to understand the basic crossing definition. 8)
I do it free for you. If you refuse, just learn to code, simulate millions of spins and then it's time to retire, after finding yourself in minus.
Quote from: Nimo on Jul 29, 04:02 PM 2018No, that's not what I'm saying, take this sample for GUT 18/19
Spin 1 probability of a hit is 48.6486%
Spin 2 probability of a hit is 73.6303%
Spin 3 probability of a hit is 86.4588%
Spin 4 probability of a hit is 93.0464%
Spin 5 probability of a hit is 96.4292%
Spin 6 probability of a hit is 98.1663%
Spin 7 probability of a hit is 99.0584%
Spin 8 probability of a hit is 99.5164%
Spin 9 probability of a hit is 99.7517%
Spin 10 probability of a hit is 99.8724%
Spin 11 probability of a hit is 99.9345%
Spin 12 probability of a hit is 99.9663%
Spin 13 probability of a hit is 99.9827%
Spin 14 probability of a hit is 99.9911%
Spin 15 probability of a hit is 99.9954%
Spin 16 probability of a hit is 99.9976%
Spin 17 probability of a hit is 99.9987%
Spin 18 probability of a hit is 99.9993%
Spin 19 probability of a hit is 99.9996%
Spin 20 probability of a hit is 99.9998%
Spin 21 probability of a hit is 99.9999%
Spin 22 probability of a hit is 99.9999%
You know the meaning of these probabilities?
Spin 3 probability of a hit is 86.4588%After betting 3!!! x 18 units on 18 numbers, you have a chance of 86,4588% that one of them hits
>= 1
And for playing this GUT crossing probability (18/19 only)
0,4864 * 18 - 0,5135 * 18 = -0,4878$ EV
2nd spin is lower than 50% for a single show up. Not 73.63%.
And each crossing bet has a negative EV. Why bother?
Quote from: The General on Jul 29, 07:02 PM 2018
The payout will always be short of the probability of winning for your 10 numbers, regardless of how long they go with or without hitting. If your 10 numbers have not hit after 30 spins, then the probability of them winning on the next spin is still the same as it would be if they had hit. Again, just count the number of pockets that remain on the wheel at each spin if you don't believe me.
What is the logical solution of this?
Don´t play roulette, don´t talk about it, don´t read about it, don´t run a forum about it.
Quote from: Steve on Jul 29, 09:15 PM 2018
... Your explanations are really as clear as mud. ...
Steve, you did understand what I wrote.
And I´m sure my English is good enough that people can follow my explanations. Even if my English is not 100% perfect.
But this quality of "argument" and answering is not what I understand under a "proper discussion"
Quote from: Steve on Jul 29, 07:56 PM 2018
Nope, its fact vs fiction. You dont understand, its simple. Caleb and I get a little itchy when we see people spreading what is essentially "harmful bullshit", which to any reasonably educated and logical person is obvious.
Really, really bad logic. According to you, any questioning of logic means there is likely merit. Pay attention, you might learn what motivates caleb and I to waste our time is distaste for complete hogwash, and making the truth clear. Please stop distracting the conversation.
Still opinion no proof at all.
I should have stayed out of this forum like I did for many months.
Quote from: winkel on Jul 30, 04:15 AM 2018
What is the logical solution of this?
Don´t play roulette, don´t talk about it, don´t read about it, don´t run a forum about it.
No. Simply try new approaches focusing on increasing accuracy, instead of approaches that are literally no more effective than random bets.
Have you ever seen me criticize a genuinely new approach, whether it works or not?
Quote from: winkel on Jul 30, 04:20 AM 2018
Steve, you did understand what I wrote.
An I´m sure my English is good enough that people can follow my explanations.
But this quality of "argument" and answering is not what I understand under a "proper discussion"
If your explanations were clear, why did i ask questions? Geez winkel i even explained what was unclear. Please stop dragging this on whinging about everything. Can you please just clarify your explanations?
Quote from: winkel on Jul 30, 04:22 AM 2018
I should have stayed out of this forum like I did for many months.
Was that because you liked to make claims but couldn't substantiate them or answer simple questions?
You know if you make bold claims like you can know for sure which 12 numbers won't spin next, but you don't change odds, you should expect people to question you. Instead you whinge about it and play the victim.
... or should everyone just take your word?
Quote from: Steve on Jul 30, 04:24 AM 2018
If your explanations were clear, why did i ask questions? Geez winkel i even explained what was unclear. Please stop dragging this on whinging about everything. Can you please just clarify your explanations?
What do you think do I bet if I watch 10 spins with no returns and then start betting 10 numbers.
And if I give example for the next three spins, how many spins do I bet? 76?
don´t aim to be that stupid.
Quote from: Steve on Jul 30, 04:28 AM 2018
Was that because you liked to make claims but couldn't substantiate them or answer simple questions?
OH another example for proper discussion?
You know if you make bold claims like you can know for sure which 12 numbers won't spin next, but you don't change odds, you should expect people to question you. Instead you whinge about it and play the victim.
So you didn´t read my posts at all. If you did, you would have seen why I wrote this. Not to claim this but to show the mistake of claiming "I can exclude 3 numbers."
... or should everyone just take your word?
Why should anyone just take your word or caleb´s
It is not the kind of discussion I was invited to.
Quote from: winkel on Jul 30, 04:41 AM 2018
What do you think do I bet if I watch 10 spins with no returns and then start betting 10 numbers.
And if I give example for the next three spins, how many spins do I bet? 76?
don´t aim to be that stupid.
Winkel, are you feeling ok? Your explanations are really bad. Obviously you think youre a master of explanations too.
Again can you please just stop acting like a child and explain clearly instead of wasting time.
Quote from: winkel on Jul 30, 04:46 AM 2018Why should anyone just take your word or caleb´s
Ill speak for myself. I dont expect you to take mine or anyones word. I expect them to validate what im saying. When thats done, truth is no longer debated. I dont waste time complaining about everything.
Are you going to clarify your strategy or keep playing the victim whinging about everything?
So while Steve and Caleb are off bullying Winkel, as the title of this topic and its first post I went off and made $7500 (real money) yesterday just betting as the first post said. No computers, no VB, no wobbly wheels. I did however was going to use the combined totals of both Steve's and Caleb's IQs, but that wouldn't give me a selection lower than zero (would double zero be lower?) Anyway I'm going to give Steve what he wanted as he posted in another thread, that he wanted a quieter forum. I won't be posting here any longer and I suggest that everyone else does the same.
Quote from: Nimo on Jul 24, 06:54 PM 2018
Here is a run from 6 numbers that I literally pulled out of a hat. 2-8-19-22-28-34.
I decided I would start with a $500 bankroll and look to make a 50% return, the amount of spins didn't matter as long as I either got my return or I lost the bank.
I took the numbers, put one unit on each and doubled the unit amount on a number each time it hit. I got my result by spin 49.
I don't have other charted amounts, but I have run this scenario many times on a roulette app and each time I reach my target. Sometimes with 30 spins, sometimes within 90 spins. I have run it past to see if keeps winning but progression bottoms out and negative balances come in. $250 seems to be a good spot for this progression. Haven't tried real money yet, just thought t was interesting that it always reached target on RNG. Even tried it with 1-2-3-4-5-6 and it worked.
It's a repeater system, random numbers that repeat.
(link:://:.pichost.org/images/2018/07/24/temp_777601.png) (link:://:.pichost.org/image/2JVPd)
So essentially you flat bet 6 numbers and when one hits you add another unit to that number until target reached
Nimo
Been great knowing you on here, all the best
Ok bye nimo. Probably eventually youll better understand whats actually happening here, how roulette works, what all professional statasticians, mathematicians, casino consultants, scientists etc are on about... and even how its possible to win with random bets. Winkel, who isn't even sure what odds are or if his system changes them, or how odds are even relevant, must know best.
Perhaps start your own forum and forbid any logical discussion. Ban anything related to verifiable reality, and encourage different versions of approaches that have already been tested countless times. Never learn. Ignore the foundations of a trillion dollar industry.. the people behind it know nothing. Ban all critical thought, and when someone claims to have the hg, don't dare be skeptical - you might offend them.
I'm not so sure you're in a position to question other people's iqs. We all started ignorant to facts. Not knowing yet is not a problem - but having verifiable fact right in front of you and choosing to ignore it is a problem. Its willful ignorance, which is even worse than low iq.
Yes, i would prefer members who didnt bury their heads in the sand, or get offended when someone explains why their approach wont work. I would prefer members who appreciate i give my time and experience free here when other players pay a fortune for it. I would prefer members who didn't confuse bullying with calling out someone who has been misleading and harming others.
You tell people that continuously win that their head is in the sand
Meanwhile they don’t claim much, other then what they are doing is working
Can you handle that? Never saw him claim anything about HG. Only that he chose random numbers and waited for a repeat to reach target
It’s funny watching the pros say what doesn’t work, actually work LOL
Rg, he has said he wins more than he loses. Thats not a problem. I did that with a bad system for a year and wouldn't let anyone tell me i hadn't completely beaten roulette.
The GREAT UNIVERSAL THEORY seems pretty HGish to me. He borrowed the name from the Grand Unified Theory.
Put things into perspective. He appeared confident he has it figured out and that i was the stupid one. So ok, i decided to see if thats the case. Am i allowed?
So naturally, i asked him to back up what he says. Considering people follow him, my queries are reasonable. But his response is complaining and acting like I'm trying to destroy him. I mean grow up, get a backbone. People are allowed to question you. I don't have a fit when someone questions me... instead i respond with clear validating information. If winkel doesn't want to do that, it doesn't really support his claims or look good for him.
At this stage, I'm still trying to understand his ambiguous and vague explanations. When i do, we can run some simple tests.
Based on what he said, he keeps all the secrets to himself. He only gives part of his master plan to the public. You believe it? He surely made a fortune by now.
Quote from: Steve on Jul 30, 08:16 AM 2018whats actually happening here, how roulette works
This is where I have a problem i.e What is happening here
The recent goal of that seems to be to "enlighten everyone" that the "game" cant be beat but the "device" producing the random numbers can.
Beating the "device" isnt roulette and when I last looked, the site is called rouletteforum.cc
Roulette is a game with a random number generator and a betting layout.
i think many are a bit hesitant to post now for fear of ridicule...and the "old pro" count has dwindled and the Newbie count has increased.
Its definitely lost its direction (roulette) over to some left-of-field direction (beat the device or you are a retard)
Just a mish-mosh mess to be honest
Just my opinion as a 3000+ poster of 7 years (who cares? No loyalty cards stamped here)
Quote from: Turner on Jul 30, 08:38 AM 2018the "game" cant be beat but the "device" producing the random numbers can.
No. If the device produces random spins, it means you are stuck with the same probabilities, and nothing can beat it. Except maybe approaches like precog, but we wouldnt know without more testing.
You are confusing explanations of why old approaches dont work, with something else.
Quote from: Turner on Jul 30, 08:38 AM 2018Roulette is a game with a random number generator and a betting layout.
No thats a slot machinewith pretty roulette animations designed to fool players into thinking its roulette.
If rng is what anyone wants to play, then attack the rng, which may have flaws.
Quote from: Turner on Jul 30, 08:38 AM 2018i think many are a bit hesitant to post now for fear of ridicule...and the "old pro" count has dwindled and the Newbie count has increased.
Point taken, and yes perhaps. But understanding will help. Im not against systems. Im against the same old shit repackaged.
Mostly i say nothing about specific approaches. Comparatively rarely i speak up, and it begins nice and helpful. But sometimes the system mastermind gets offended, says its a conspiracy to sell computers and im censoring the hg.. thats gets my back up a little because its complete bullshit.
Besides if people dont want free professional advice, which costs other players a fortune, they can post blisfully umaware in the system players only forum. Neither me or caleb will go there.
Quote from: Turner on Jul 30, 08:38 AM 2018beat the device or you are a retard)
Not exactly. Nobody cares if a system player wants to tinker and have fun. I did for years. Where its different is when someone claims to have the hg, never loses, wins more than they lose and they have the secrets of beating roulette. It misleads and harms people whosee roulette as more than a fun game.
Quote from: Turner on Jul 30, 08:38 AM 2018Just my opinion as a 3000+ poster of 7 years (who cares? No loyalty cards stamped here)
I get it but youll find i only arc up when a self professed guru is misleading a lot of people, or they are accusing me of a conspiracy, instead of just trying to help.
Quote from: Steve on Jul 30, 09:00 AM 2018
No. If the device produces random spins, it means you are stuck with the same probabilities, and nothing can beat it. Except maybe approaches like precog, but we wouldnt know without more testing.
You are confusing explanations of why old approaches dont work, with something else.
No thats a slot machinewith pretty roulette animations designed to fool players into thinking its roulette.
If rng is what anyone wants to play, then attack the rng, which may have flaws.
Point taken, and yes perhaps. But understanding will help. Im not against systems. Im against the same old shit repackaged.
Mostly i say nothing about specific approaches. Comparatively rarely i speak up, and it begins nice and helpful. But sometimes the system mastermind gets offended, says its a conspiracy to sell computers and im censoring the hg.. thats gets my back up a little because its complete bullshit.
Besides if people dont want free professional advice, which costs other players a fortune, they can post blisfully umaware in the system players only forum. Neither me or caleb will go there.
Not exactly. Nobody cares if a system player wants to tinker and have fun. I did for years. Where its different is when someone claims to have the hg, never loses, wins more than they lose and they have the secrets of beating roulette. It misleads and harms people whosee roulette as more than a fun game.
I get it but youll find i only arc up when a self professed guru is misleading a lot of people, or they are accusing me of a conspiracy, instead of just trying to help.
Many people win more than lose using their own triggers that don’t work. :)
Quote from: RouletteGhost on Jul 30, 09:03 AM 2018
Many people win more than lose using their own triggers that don’t work. :)
You've never heard of winning for a while, then eventually tanking?
Maybe you missed a perfect example of it... when mpr was reset, there were many winners. But gradually almost all players lost their winnings and more. Just like a real casino.
See link:s://:.roulettephysics.com/roulette-strategy#the-illusion-of-a-winning-system
Understand I'm not the enemy here. I'm just explaining inconvenient truth. Don't shoot the messenger. Don't get offended when i or anyone says something that goes against what you think. Its not a conspiracy. Try to understand what's being said.
Again generally im much more likely to address a self professed guru who's misleading a lot of people, whether intentionally or not. Or should i allow my forum to be used to mislead people?
Should i just shut up because ignorant members might leave? Ive said it clearly. Id rather a quieter and more productive forum, instead of a busy forum going in circles.
And I'm not against systems. I'm against old methods we already know fail.
If you want to play rng, then attack the rng. Don't try useless approaches like repeaters, understand how anyone can rank high on parx, and use common sense why someone would chose unrealistic games to brag about their system, then try and defend such games. Don't be so naive. It has all been said before. Really I'm just trying to help.
People don't need to listen to me. But its at least wise to consider what's being said.
Quote from: Turner on Jul 30, 08:38 AM 2018
This is where I have a problem i.e What is happening here
The recent goal of that seems to be to "enlighten everyone" that the "game" cant be beat but the "device" producing the random numbers can.
Beating the "device" isnt roulette and when I last looked, the site is called rouletteforum.cc
Roulette is a game with a random number generator and a betting layout.
i think many are a bit hesitant to post now for fear of ridicule...and the "old pro" count has dwindled and the Newbie count has increased.
Its definitely lost its direction (roulette) over to some left-of-field direction (beat the device or you are a retard)
Just a mish-mosh mess to be honest
Just my opinion as a 3000+ poster of 7 years (who cares? No loyalty cards stamped here)
Greetings Turner, might be putting you on the spot here, do you understand GUT.
I know of 2; Azim and my self.
But do i care members/guests should come to their own decision.
Take Nimo i'm sure he understands, after putting across his thought's he can see he's wasting his time.
So a good member has left, why because it just goes round and round, like that spiral staircase Steve is stuck on
Notto I'm not the stuck one. You'll see that eventually. Ive been where you are before.
I might add, you and your many mpr accounts are in clear loss. I know, you blame mpr. If you win real money, really thats good, keep doing it. But i don't expect your mpr results are any different to real casino results. If it makes you feel better, say I'm the one with the problem
Quote from: Nimo on Jul 30, 06:48 AM 2018
Anyway I'm going to give Steve what he wanted as he posted in another thread, that he wanted a quieter forum. I won't be posting here any longer and I suggest that everyone else does the same.
Agree.. Moderator / forum owner posts are shit, with shitty language and telling everybody that they (we) are all shit.
Please ban me.
Bye.
Ok bye.
Truth isn't always popular.
But I'm not calling people shit. You're not understanding the situation.
Quote from: Steve on Jul 30, 09:00 AM 2018No. If the device produces random spins, it means you are stuck with the same probabilities, and nothing can beat it. Except maybe approaches like precog, but we wouldnt know without more testing.
So it's not possible to beat a random wheel even using visual ballistics?
Something like precognition is a non-starter for me; the only evidence that it exists is anecdotal, which basically puts it in the same camp as systems. That being the case I don't see why precog has potential but systems are dismissed out of hand as being fallacious. There are even more compelling arguments as to why precognition can't work than there are that systems can't work.
I agree with you Steve that if someone is making big claims about a holy grail or that they have never lost then this should raise a red flag and the claimant should expect some heat, but it's a fine line.
QuoteAnd I'm not against systems. I'm against old methods we already know fail.
But to be honest, it doesn't come across like that. It's too easy to criticize even innovative and ingenious systems because "they don't change the odds". If you start from the premise that only physics (AP) can give you an edge then all systems are going to look like nonsense.
People spend a lot of time analyzing the game and the statistics to see what the norms and averages are only to be criticized by Steve no matter what
That’s why people leave
Quote from: Steve on Jul 30, 09:44 AM 2018
Notto I'm not the stuck one. You'll see that eventually. Ive been where you are before.
I might add, you and your many mpr accounts are in clear loss. I know, you blame mpr. If you win real money, really thats good, keep doing it. But i don't expect your mpr results are any different to real casino results. If it makes you feel better, say I'm the one with the problem
I wouldn’t call notto stuck
Posted years of sheets showing many more wins than losses
Seems to do ok to me
Quote from: Steve on Jul 30, 09:44 AM 2018
Notto I'm not the stuck one. You'll see that eventually. Ive been where you are before.
I might add, you and your many mpr accounts are in clear loss. I know, you blame mpr. If you win real money, really thats good, keep doing it. But i don't expect your mpr results are any different to real casino results. If it makes you feel better, say I'm the one with the problem
Steve its sticks and stones with you, it's like being in the playground, what do they say he who tries to out shout someone, shows they are trying to control. No problem with MPR, especially now you are using Random.org, which shows 15 non-hit in spins 11-40; so if members/guests can't work with that, that's not my problem, after all have they not researched the method, sounds like you need to try GUT, then you can do a Britney bitch, Scream & shout.
Even if what you are doing is working for you it just can’t work!
Quote from: RouletteGhost on Jul 30, 09:57 AM 2018
People spend a lot of time analyzing the game and the statistics to see what the norms and averages are only to be criticized by Steve no matter what
That’s why people leave
Rich people should treat this place like a library, take from it what they learn, having someone keep repeating themselves, change the odds, you know the rest don't wash, sounds like they are stuck.
Rich i get what i want from here, if i want a good laugh i go and see the rantings on GF where general or who ever he is,because i can't keep up with all his AKA's; and you could be right about scissors, who said he was going but look he's back
I'll make this clear. If anyone else wants to make a dramatic dummy spit exit, do so.
I don't care about losing narrowminded members, incapable of hearing the truth, unwilling to listen to reason or look at the bigger picture. They are of no benefit to the forum or its members. Basically i don't see the value an ostrich has to the forum and it's members.
I do care about reasonable, sound-minded members who may not agree with me, but genuinely want to beat roulette, and try to avoid the same guaranteed losing approaches that have been tried for thousands of years. These are smarter people in the learning process, and the type of people i spend time to help.
I also do care about system tinkerers who don't particularly care if they don't have the hg. Nobody cares what they do with their own time and money. Nobody is going to bust their balls because they arent hurting anyone, unlike the self professed gurus peddling nonsense.
Im not going to censor truth just because it's unpopular. Should I?
I'm not going to shut up when someone accuses me of trying to censor the hg, when really I'm just trying to help.
Members are allowed to be wrong, learn, make mistakes etc. I was no different once. Again i only arc up when self professed gurus are misleading large amounts of people. Why? Because i value truth more than popularity.
When i explain verifiable and important truth, or respond to false claims I'm trying to censor the hg, i do so with the knowledge that some narrow-sighted will leave because they think i have the problem. Thats not a problem.
Quote from: Steve on Jul 30, 09:00 AM 2018Besides if people dont want free professional advice, which costs other players a fortune, they can post blisfully umaware in the system players only forum. Neither me or caleb will go there.
So if Winkel or Turbo, or anyone else who says they have the holy grail posts there, they will be left alone?
I was looking at the description of that section. Lol, not exactly welcoming and unbiased is it?
QuoteHere you can discuss systems in peace without anyone explaining why your ideas wont work. You need special permissions to post here. Contact admin (Steve) if you want access. Moderators cannot give you access. Also be careful of information in this section as experienced players are not allowed to help, which means even basic mistakes wont be corrected. Why? Because right or wrong, some people don't want the advice.
Quote from: Steve on Jul 30, 10:10 AM 2018I also do care about system tinkerers who don't particularly care if they don't have the hg.
Glad to hear it, because I put myself in that camp. Systems are fun to tinker around with and I do believe that players who like using and creating systems are on the whole, more successful than those who don't. That doesn't mean that the systems necessarily work, it could just mean that using systems is a symptom rather than a cause of success. The cause of success comes from being passionate and serious about the game, an attitude. And it's this attitude which motivates such people to work on systems.
Quote from: Joe on Jul 30, 09:55 AM 2018So it's not possible to beat a random wheel even using visual ballistics?
No, because the odds can't be changed. Random means 1 in 37 for single numbers.
Quote from: Joe on Jul 30, 09:55 AM 2018Something like precognition is a non-starter for me; the only evidence that it exists is anecdotal
I disagree. Start with the global consciousness project. Also search trials where participants clearly had a subconscious physiological response to emotional images before they were seen. There's a lot more. I also have a report by a very reputable research organization who specifically developed an enhancement algorithm to amplify precog accuracy. I implemented it in an android app. See the outside the box thread.
Quote from: Joe on Jul 30, 09:55 AM 2018There are even more compelling arguments as to why precognition can't work than there are that systems can't work.
Mathematical certainty doesn't get more certain. If accuracy isn't better than random, there's no chance.
Perhaps consider what i said above.
Quote from: Joe on Jul 30, 09:55 AM 2018I agree with you Steve that if someone is making big claims about a holy grail or that they have never lost then this should raise a red flag and the claimant should expect some heat, but it's a fine line.
Thats all I'm doing with winkel... making sure he isn't misleading and harming members. Some members mistake this for something different. I get it why they think that, but look deeper. Im trying to protect forum integrity, and it requires me to adhere to truth no matter how unpopular.
Quote from: Joe on Jul 30, 09:55 AM 2018It's too easy to criticize even innovative and ingenious systems because "they don't change the odds".
I do not criticize new ideas. I encourage them. When a member thinks they have something new when it isn't, usually i say nothing. I have other things to do anyway. Again i only arc up when its a self professed guru misleading people, or they're accusing me of trying to censor the hg.
Quote from: RouletteGhost on Jul 30, 09:57 AM 2018People spend a lot of time analyzing the game and the statistics to see what the norms and averages are only to be criticized by Steve no matter what
No, like i said above. People are allowed to make mistakes. Understand when and why i become involved.
Notto, i haven't completely made up my mind about gut. I'm still waiting for winkel to explain some things. And please don't talk to me about sticks and stones. For a long time youve been on my case, probably because you didn't like your mpr results. Real wheel spins vs rsndom.org. The stats you mention are no different long term.
Quote from: RouletteGhost on Jul 30, 10:01 AM 2018
Even if what you are doing is working for you it just can’t work!
You didn't read what i wrote. There's a difference between wins by a gambler who thinks he has an edge, and wins from a legitimate advantage.
Nobody cares if a system player risks their own money. I only care when people are being misled by slef professed gurus. Please lets move on from this point.
Quote from: Joe on Jul 30, 10:12 AM 2018
So if Winkel or Turbo, or anyone else who says they have the holy grail posts there, they will be left alone?
Correct. Thats exactly what the area is for.
Quote from: Joe on Jul 30, 10:12 AM 2018
So if Winkel or Turbo, or anyone else who says they have the holy grail posts there, they will be left alone?
I was looking at the description of that section. Lol, not exactly welcoming and unbiased is it?
No, ill change it. You have to understand it was very painful for me to create that area. I believe truth stands on its own merit. If something is true, it should be self evident assuming people actually research properly and have an open mind. I believe everyone needs to have a backbone and not be so precious when someone provides an opposing view. But even outside that area, trolling is forbidden.
It's easy to see justified questions and comments to gurus, and mistake it with trolling or harassment.
BBB
Is producing what is already posted, but its great info for new members and guests to see.
Look in mathematics section for;
link:s://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=14735.0
Look to a poster name of Luck of the Irish, what he show’s Winkel has showed; info that’s so similar in its results, a member named vladir shows same info.
So the point is, if people’s info is so similar, like BBB saying a repeat should appear by spin 8, who’s to say this info does not give them more accuracy, to someone who just randomly plasters units over the table. In the above link a poster shows in the brackets, this is back in 2014
(This is extremly interesting. Some time ago I was arround this same thinking of repeaters. I generated some billion sets of numbers in excel and analyzed for 37 spin cycles. Only 1 time I got only 5 repeaters in 37 spins, and very, very rarely only 6 repeaters. Most of the time at least 7 repeaters appeared in a 37 spin cycle, and many times more then that.)
So you take from this library/forum what you want and okay read what Steve is saying but don’t let him sway you with his shouting the loudest.
P.S, page 3 in the link, better still do some reading that light bulb moment might just come.
Now you brought up MPR
I see casino agent is sitting top, i don't suppose anyone knows what he's using. But at the end of the day, you'll give this reply its pointless it's not live spins
And on that note notto, i suggest people learn how to properly test systems.
Understand why large volume testing is essential, although you'll never play that many spins. It has been explain in detail before.
Use a reputable spin source.
Understand if a system doesn't win with flat bets, it won't win with progression.... yes progression helps you win for a while, then you tank.
Quote from: nottophammer on Jul 30, 10:54 AM 2018
Now you brought up MPR
I see casino agent is sitting top, i don't suppose anyone knows what he's using. But at the end of the day, you'll give this reply its pointless it's not live spins
No notto. I'm open to the possibility of the hg. You aren't understanding. I'm just not open to the possibility of the hg being a method that clearly doesn't at all increase accuracy of predictions.
Why? Because 37 is always greater than 36.
How many times do i need to say it?
Turner, waiting, do you understand the principles of GUT, sometime ago you explained to me what GUT was, i asked you was it intuition, gut feeling.
So i've answered the question for myself, yes you do, so what so hard for Huey and Dewey to understand?
Steve i see you posted the usual, we know, we know the odds are not fair, but as long as the bets win more than lose, what's the point we'll just keep going round and round on your staircase
All will be fine, that peoples can win if that will be true. Long time I wanted to meet peoples who win. And I reach some meetings, from peoples, who claimed about their wins in forums in skype groups etc.. But still not saw wins... :) All what i saw, was few wins in martingale style...
Then I organized a good web camera. All become very simple - find such winner in the forum, and through skype he can show, that he is the real winner. All very simple, but sure wins I still not saw...
What I can say after all that - peoples can say all what they want in forums, but if that is a reality - is the big question.
Quote from: nottophammer on Jul 30, 11:06 AM 2018we know the odds are not fair, but as long as the bets win more than lose, what's the point we'll just keep going round and round on your staircase
Is the problem my english, or your understanding of english?
If you perpetually win more than you lose, you have an edge. That means you increased the accuracy of predictions.
But progression won't help if you don't have an edge, because your bets are just different size bets on different spins.
Im on my merri go round (better analogy than starcase) because you are on yours. We both keep repeating ourselves. One of us is correct.
(link:://:.pichost.org/images/2018/07/30/temp_617549.png) (link:://:.pichost.org/image/2cDRp)
Steve, why I collect data on non-hit, I suppose you’ve not seen these MPR spins, but there posted elsewhere, anyway, the link above in the maths section, members posts have helped. BBB is doing fine work, now he’s going to look over the Random.org, like me I now use them as Mortagon stopped posting.
In the KFC topic you’ll see 6/10 has happened 2 times in spins 1-10 for R.org, so why would I think dodgy 4 repeats, no, I’ve seen it. What’s next, oh yeah spins 11-20, refer to checkpoint, R.org is showing at this point in the data collection average is 7 non-hit for 11-20; oh look 8 non-hit came.
As I said earlier members and guests need to do their own study of non-hit, what do the non-hit do up to the 19th non-hit, average to hit in 2 spins, I’ll leave it there.
(link:://:.pichost.org/images/2018/07/30/temp_509528.png) (link:://:.pichost.org/image/2cNf0)
Wouldn't the Genius like those spins
Quote from: nottophammer on Jul 30, 11:06 AM 2018
Turner, waiting, do you understand the principles of GUT, sometime ago you explained to me what GUT was, i asked you was it intuition, gut feeling.
So i've answered the question for myself, yes you do, so what so hard for Huey and Dewey to understand?
Steve i see you posted the usual, we know, we know the odds are not fair, but as long as the bets win more than lose, what's the point we'll just keep going round and round on your staircase
Im no GUT expert, but I understand what it is.
I think even Winkel agreed with me that it is a tool to help you decide how to bet for that small window.
Thank you Turner, you're one smart cookie
Quote from: Nimo on Jul 24, 06:54 PM 2018
Here is a run from 6 numbers that I literally pulled out of a hat. 2-8-19-22-28-34.
I decided I would start with a $500 bankroll and look to make a 50% return, the amount of spins didn't matter as long as I either got my return or I lost the bank.
I took the numbers, put one unit on each and doubled the unit amount on a number each time it hit. I got my result by spin 49.
I don't have other charted amounts, but I have run this scenario many times on a roulette app and each time I reach my target. Sometimes with 30 spins, sometimes within 90 spins. I have run it past to see if keeps winning but progression bottoms out and negative balances come in. $250 seems to be a good spot for this progression. Haven't tried real money yet, just thought t was interesting that it always reached target on RNG. Even tried it with 1-2-3-4-5-6 and it worked.
Quote from: RouletteGhost on Jul 30, 07:52 AM 2018
So essentially you flat bet 6 numbers and when one hits you add another unit to that number until target reached
Did a quick group of runs in RX RNG (00 wheel) just to goof around, parameters as Nimo detailed. Seems like it could easily be coded into RX for a bigger run.
End result: 9 wins, 2 losses, +2410u using $1 units, target of +200/-500u.
Quote from: Steve on Jul 30, 11:22 AM 2018
Is the problem my english, or your understanding of english?
If you perpetually win more than you lose, you have an edge. That means you increased the accuracy of predictions.
But progression won't help if you don't have an edge, because your bets are just different size bets on different spins.
Im on my merri go round (better analogy than starcase) because you are on yours. We both keep repeating ourselves. One of us is correct.
Correction: it's not win more than you lose because with double dozen bet you win more, but each win pays less compared to a single dozen that wins less but pays more. So edge is more about escaping a break even game before you even factor in the house advantage, etc.
Quote from: Nimo on Jul 30, 06:48 AM 2018
So while Steve and Caleb are off bullying Winkel, as the title of this topic and its first post I went off and made $7500 (real money) yesterday just betting as the first post said. No computers, no VB, no wobbly wheels. I did however was going to use the combined totals of both Steve's and Caleb's IQs, but that wouldn't give me a selection lower than zero (would double zero be lower?) Anyway I'm going to give Steve what he wanted as he posted in another thread, that he wanted a quieter forum. I won't be posting here any longer and I suggest that everyone else does the same.
Turbo, CHT, Nimo, Notto, Winkel, Junscissorhands, Mr J, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc...all claiming to be winning more than they lose over a long period of time.
I sure hope I'm still alive when their systems finally fail...because it appears that's how long it's going to take for it to happen.
Quote from: NimoI went off and made $7500 (real money) yesterday just betting as the first post said.
Nimo,
Congratulation on your win! Hold on to it. :)
Notto, when it comes to issues like average hits, non-hits, repeaters or whatever, you might think youre:
- Using statistics, because it tells us what must happen, or
- Using math to beat a math game, or
- Using averages that are undeniable and inevitable.
In each case, your perception of reality is wrong.
Say a player said they can use averages to win, because they know after about 100 spins, about half will be black and red. Forget zero for now.
They say their strategy is:
1. Observe 100 spins
2. Start betting when you see in 100 spins, 40 are black and 60 are red, or the difference is even greater
3. Next they bet on the lesser spun color, because they know the more spins there are, the closer the balance between red/black.
Its just fallacy. The averages are from basic probability and statistics. It cant at all be used to increase accuracy of predictions. And when you dont increase accuracy, your bets are as good as random, your bet selection changed nothing.
Where players get stuck is they know the more spins they see, the closer the balance. But the accuracy of bets wont change.
With repeaters, law of a third etc, the fallacies are just as incorrect. The difference is the examples are more complex and difficult to get your head around.... i mean we know we average about 24 unique numbers in 37 spins right? Its inevitable. Thats the way of thinking and its why people get stuck in the fallacy.
In winkels system, he is just waiting for a normal and meaningless statistical event to happen, then expecting spins from there will somehow be more predictable. They arent.
He said he doesnt change odds and doesnt need to. It appears he doesnt understand whats meant by odds. Because if he understood, he'd know its impossible to perpetually profit unless you are winning more frequently than random.
For example, if you bet on a coin toss with 50% probability of a win (50% odds), but are paid only 0.9-1 instead of a fair 1-1 on wins, then how can you profit if you only ever average 50% wins? Thats why you need to improve odds, ie increase accuracy. Winkel saying he doesn't need to change odds is a serious problem.
But ok it appears he just didn't understand what odds means. Not good for a guru, but ok.
Then he said his system tells him when betting is more likely to be a win. Finally, he claims to change the odds / increase accuracy. So let's move on.
His method to do this is like wait for 19 unhit numbers in 18 spins. The "crossing" is about to occur. I mean wtf? Why do your chances of winning suddenly improve at that point? Does the wheel have this secret point it springs on you??
Its nothing personal against winkel. Not even remotely. I sincerely feel bad when i deflate someone's balloon and tell them santa isn't real. But it's beneficial for them still.
Where i don't feel bad is when they realistically know, after so long, that they've been misleading people. And any embarrassment brought to them is just how it plays out.
Where i especially dont feel bad about it is when the guru clearly knows, is arrogant about it, and continues the charade. These are the kind of people that deliberately use unrealistic games, play money leaderboards, and spend an awful lot of time convincing their play money wins is proof of their superiority over everyone. The master. Thats what narcissists do.
In the end, there will be genuine people who make mistakes, and narcissists who lie through their teeth to keep their charade going. And sometimes there might be a genuine guru with the true hg.
So how can anyone know the difference? Mostly by understanding what does and doesn't work, and why. Lots of proper testing. And using your own common sense. People shouldn't be so damn gullible.
You carry on preaching from your spiral stair case.
As said it's for each individual to find his/her way; if they listen to you, you might show them something of some value, but to me, it's a big NO, made 50 units this morning in 8 spins, thank you out the door, all from collected data of non-hits.
I've said members and guests should treat this forum as a library, so i'll read your reply, but for me it will be the usual 1/37; change the odds, how about you change your record :thumbsup:
Quote from: nottophammer on Jul 31, 06:44 AM 2018You carry on preaching from your spiral stair case
At least my stairs head up.
Quote from: nottophammer on Jul 31, 06:44 AM 2018it's for each individual to find his/her way;
I agree. What i like about hearing about people's experiences is it helps me avoid the same mistakes. Its like getting extra experience by living an extra life. I might not take the advice if i don't understand their reasoning, but certainly i will if i do understand and agree with their reasoning.
Alternately, an unwise fool won't listen, and won't even try to understand. Worse still, they may even poke fun.
Quote from: nottophammer on Jul 31, 06:44 AM 2018made 50 units this morning in 8 spins, thank you out the door, all from collected data of non-hits.
Thats great notto, but my palm is still on my face looking down. You have no clue what I'm talking about.
You might be slow, but other members may actually understand amd benefit from what I'm saying.
Notto, i'll make this clear. Rarely ill try to help you. Im not interested. Frankly you're really slow, and wilfully ignorant. You just need to learn for yourself.
When i respond to your bad logic, it isnt to help you. So dont think im preaching to you.
Quote from: Steve on Jul 31, 07:06 AM 2018
Notto, i'll make this clear. Rarely ill try to help you. Im not interested. Frankly you're really slow, and wilfully ignorant. You just need to learn for yourself.
When i respond to your bad logic, it isnt to help you. So dont think im preaching to you.
Ok...I am going to throw in a marketing term that most probably wont know. It is "econometrics"
Econometrics is the study of the implications of a marketing drive or push, after the event, to see if your efforts have yielded better sales, or better communication or less confusion on the website etc. Depends on what the goal was by doing the marketing push.
The push here from Steve and Caleb is to educate people and point out the error of their ways.
Its been an intense campaign and now we need to run some econometrics.
I think the best way would be for Steve and Caleb to stop commenting for a week or 2 and if its been successful, we will start to see new and old posters thinking differently in their posts. looking to improve bet selection....looking for ways to improve the odds etc
If they are still posting like someone who is slow or a retard (not my words) then its a fail.
On finding a fail in econometrics, you change tack, or completly switch stratedgy. You DO NOT ignore the results because you dont like the answer.
And the biggie.....you really dont continue the same strategy knowing it failed or its personal, or has alterior motives other than "educating people"
If I was your manager, I would be looking for ROI for all the time and effort you 2 have invested in this "educational process"
Will you try that? NOPE!!!
You can say notto is slow
You can say he doesn’t understand
You can say YOU learn from his mistakes
But the fact remains. He successfully profits from the game betting non hits after X number of spins
Maybe that drives AP players and VB players wild.
Quote from: Turner on Jul 31, 07:37 AM 2018Will you try that? NOPE!!!
Turner, for a week or two?
How about for years?
You are neglecting most of my time i just ignore people's misunderstandings. Ive got my own stuff to do.
I explained circumstances in recent times when i bother to say something. Go back a few years when i started trying to correct people's basic understanding....
Initially i was super polite & politically correct.
Now fast forward to today.
Here's what ive learned:
Some people respond better when I'm gentle. And some people need it spelled out for them in harsh but honest terms.
So i get your point, but this is not a case where I'm harsh and need to be gentle. Ive done that.
This is a case where some people need it explained in a direct and blunt manner. Ever needed to shake someone and say "look, pay attention"
As for calling someone slow, i don't do so lightly or without justification.
What's the conclusion?
Ive been around on forums for some time now. I wouldn't have ever bothered at all if it weren't for a competitor busting his ass to lie about me, and even then i ignored him for 6 months. Thats another story.
When it comes to helping people understand the basics of roulette, ive found the best way to get through to people is directly without sugarcoating. So ive tried your suggestion. If you sugarcoat, they tend to keep staring at the clouds.
The other conclusion is if someone doesn't want to know the truth, and is happy in their own reality however deluded they may be, don't waste your time. You won't get anywhere.
So like i just said, I'm not trying to help people like notto. I couldn't care less. He doesn't want help or advice.
The players i try to help may start on repeaters, cold numbers or whatever the year's flavor is. But smarter players eventually learn their patterns of system development that lead back to the drawing board. These are the players hungry for the TRUTH, whatever it may be. Thats who i am.
Give it to me straight, however painful it is. But back your claims with facts. I don't care how you come across as long as your facts check out. And that's who I'm talking to. Words like "slow" don't change facts, do they? So they wouldn't bother the people im talking to. Anyone smart enough, with eyes on truth alone, looks past the message delivery, or who's giving the message..... and focuses on the message itself.
Quote from: RouletteGhost on Jul 31, 07:40 AM 2018He successfully profits from the game betting non hits after X number of spins
Did you saw his profit?
Win several times in raw using Martingale not so difficult, but that are not real wins. That left main loss somewhere in front and that in front will come soon...
RG, just wound up Normy on MPR, said i wont press ready, but the good old boy i am i did.
Normy my opening 10 spins, not had this in 210 sets of 148 numbers from R.org,
22
36
27
8
27
27
36
36
35
27
= 5/10
now i had to place 32 units, won the 1st 4 bets.
RG, Migos come on and he fucks me up sometimes, he disappears and comes straight back, whether he had to reload the page who knows, but like you said RG, i; +1 all the way at spin 40 which lost was at 16 units on all remaining, the score was 16 repeats to 14 non-hit, so -1 over the 30 spins,
at spin 47 made enough to stop +123, using 19 units.
Who cares what Steve thinks, as long as you know the averages you can K-eep T-he F-aith better known now as the KFC 8)
Quote from: RouletteGhost on Jul 31, 07:40 AM 2018But the fact remains. He successfully profits from the game betting non hits after X number of spins
You are stuck on this point. I think it's great if anyone wins, however they win. Good on them.
Ive never said you can't win with a system or random bets.
What i respond about is when a guru tells people they will win with an approach thats no better than random bets. Its harmful advice and needs correction.
Rg you didn't read or understand the link i sent. Its ok but if you want to discuss a topic with me, don't bury your head in the sand.
Quote from: RouletteGhost on Jul 31, 07:40 AM 2018Maybe that drives AP players and VB players wild.
Rg what makes you think we can't just use typical systems too, if they worked? There are more holes in your logic but I'm not interested.
Perhaps my definition of “works†is different then yours LOL
Daily profits define “works†for me
I know what you mean when you say “worksâ€. Sorry not all of us have the time for AP
And rg, remember back when mpr started......
All the big talkers bragging about wins in real casinos tanked. The difference was everyone could see. The result was some of them began criticizing the game, calling it rigged etc. One even left to parx. One of the losing players complaining was notto. A man with lots of accounts and a combined overall result of loss.... just like the other big talkers.
Do i particularly care? No. You just might want to look at the bigger picture and not be so naive.
You might understand better if you read the link i sent, with an open mind.
My definition of "works" is the more you play, the more you win. "Works" does not mean sometimes wins, sometimes loses, but it's easier to focus if the wins and forget the losses.
Your definition of "works" applies to random bets too. And random bets is exactly what most systems are. There might be deluded logic to the bet selection, but you still end up with the same frequency of wins. Nothing changes. I'm not sure why you still don't understand this.
Quote from: Turner on Jul 31, 07:37 AM 2018
Ok...I am going to throw in a marketing term that most probably wont know. It is "econometrics"
Econometrics is the study of the implications of a marketing drive or push, after the event, to see if your efforts have yielded better sales, or better communication or less confusion on the website etc. Depends on what the goal was by doing the marketing push.
The push here from Steve and Caleb is to educate people and point out the error of their ways.
Its been an intense campaign and now we need to run some econometrics.
I think the best way would be for Steve and Caleb to stop commenting for a week or 2 and if its been successful, we will start to see new and old posters thinking differently in their posts. looking to improve bet selection....looking for ways to improve the odds etc
If they are still posting like someone who is slow or a retard (not my words) then its a fail.
On finding a fail in econometrics, you change tack, or completly switch stratedgy. You DO NOT ignore the results because you dont like the answer.
And the biggie.....you really dont continue the same strategy knowing it failed or its personal, or has alterior motives other than "educating people"
If I was your manager, I would be looking for ROI for all the time and effort you 2 have invested in this "educational process"
Will you try that? NOPE!!!
Turner,
Political correctness is nauseating and ineffective after a while. Ignorance can be contagious and a hug isn't the cure for it. The facts, logic, and common sense are a more effective treatment. ( not calling anyone ignorant)
Quote from: The General on Jul 31, 09:29 AM 2018
Turner,
Political correctness is nauseating and ineffective after a while. Ignorance can be contagious and a hug isn't the cure for it. The facts, logic, and common sense are a more effective treatment. ( not calling anyone ignorant)
Nothing politically incorrect about giving a teaching and measuring its effectiveness
It's the difference between being an author and having a buy now button on Amazon and being a Mormon and practically having the pamphlet pushed down your throat
You are using the Mormon model BTW
You can have the best content in the world ( and yours is a 9.5) but if your delivery is bad ( and yours is a 1) no one listens.
Rather like you are gonna do right after reading this
BTW.....the 1 was for comedy effect.....cos you are funny :thumbsup:
Quote from: Steve on Jul 30, 04:53 AM 2018
Winkel, are you feeling ok? Your explanations are really bad. Obviously you think youre a master of explanations too.
Again can you please just stop acting like a child and explain clearly instead of wasting time.
Who thinks this is proper discussion?
No reply to the explanations. Just criticising the "messenger" and criticising the kind of writing.
Quote from: Steve on Jul 30, 08:33 AM 2018
Rg, he has said he wins more than he loses. Thats not a problem. I did that with a bad system for a year and wouldn't let anyone tell me i hadn't completely beaten roulette.
I did /do it since 14 years.
The GREAT UNIVERSAL THEORY seems pretty HGish to me. He borrowed the name from the Grand Unified Theory.
No I didn´t. This name was created from a friend of mine. This friend was a mathematician who worked with Pierre Bassieux.
Put things into perspective. He appeared confident he has it figured out and that i was the stupid one. So ok, i decided to see if thats the case. Am i allowed?
You are allowed, but you didn´t do it.
So naturally, i asked him to back up what he says. Considering people follow him, my queries are reasonable. But his response is complaining and acting like I'm trying to destroy him.
Don´t you? You do! Ok you try to do so
I mean grow up, get a backbone.
Same to you
People are allowed to question you. I don't have a fit when someone questions me... instead i respond with clear validating information. If winkel doesn't want to do that, it doesn't really support his claims or look good for him.
Over 14 years there is a history, that I always responded very well in my best English.
At this stage, I'm still trying to understand his ambiguous and vague explanations. When i do, we can run some simple tests.
You can already run simple Tests with GUTCBA
Based on what he said, he keeps all the secrets to himself. He only gives part of his master plan to the public. You believe it? He surely made a fortune by now.
Proper discussion again:
First Lie: I don´t keep all the secrests. Only some. the basic Idea and how to handle it are openly accessable.
Second Lie: I never talkes of a amasterplan. There is none.
Third Lie: I don´t made a fortune by now from selling it. (Which this obviously implies) I didn´t sell it at all.
Tell me one single person I sold GUT or a variation of it.
Quote from: winkel on Jul 31, 02:21 PM 2018
Who thinks this is proper discussion?
No reply to the explanations. Just criticising the "messenger" and criticising the kind of writing.
Well it's rather like a Christopher Hitchens and Mother Theresa debate.
Although I'm with Hitchens all the way because I'm a big fan......both on the same stage is pointless.
Never the twain shall meet.
I'm 100% certain that Hitchens book " God isn't great" wasn't on her bookshelf
Quote from: Steve on Jul 30, 09:28 AM 2018
Understand I'm not the enemy here. I'm just explaining inconvenient truth. Don't shoot the messenger. Don't get offended when i or anyone says something that goes against what you think. Its not a conspiracy. Try to understand what's being said.
Every truth is inconvenient if it is not your truth!
I wouldn´t mind if it goes against my theories, but most of all it goes against me (see the post before) You nearly never ever did respond to my explanations. And if you claim you didn´t understand, you are nearly the only one in this forum. think about!
Again generally im much more likely to address a self professed guru who's misleading a lot of people, whether intentionally or not. Or should i allow my forum to be used to mislead people?
In your thinking these expressions "self professed guru" and "misleading a lot of people" are part of a "proper discussion" and arguments referring to the strategy? GROW UP
.....
And I'm not against systems. I'm against old methods we already know fail.
OK 14 years is quite old, but it is never proofed to fail. Not even by you, cause you are discussing my person not the message.
...
People don't need to listen to me. But its at least wise to consider what's being said.
It would be wiser if you would do so!
Quote from: Steve on Jul 31, 06:43 AM 2018
In winkels system, he is just waiting for a normal and meaningless statistical event to happen, then expecting spins from there will somehow be more predictable. They arent.
"normal" what is bad with "normal"? It is a meaning not an argument which proofs anything.
everything which is normal cannot be meaningless. Because it is always there and we can rely on
I say I can do a better prediction. You say: NO! Nice kind of proper discussion again.
He said he doesnt change odds and doesnt need to. It appears he doesnt understand whats meant by odds. Because if he understood, he'd know its impossible to perpetually profit unless you are winning more frequently than random.
My intention was never to beat "odds". My intention was to use a repeating sitzation, study it an find a way to improve my guessing. I don´t care if you call it "changing odds".
For example, if you bet on a coin toss with 50% probability of a win (50% odds), but are paid only 0.9-1 instead of a fair 1-1 on wins, then how can you profit if you only ever average 50% wins? Thats why you need to improve odds, ie increase accuracy. Winkel saying he doesn't need to change odds is a serious problem.
You are aware that we are talking about Roulette and with this not of Even Chances. We are talking about straight numbers.
But ok it appears he just didn't understand what odds means. Not good for a guru, but ok.
Again this GURU-Talk. Why do you need this? I know what odds are, I understand, but I don´t care about odds in my strategy. Pls try to understand.
Then he said his system tells him when betting is more likely to be a win. Finally, he claims to change the odds / increase accuracy. So let's move on.
I´m here. If you are really interested in a proper discussion and would start to attack the message and not the messenger.
His method to do this is like wait for 19 unhit numbers in 18 spins. The "crossing" is about to occur. I mean wtf? Why do your chances of winning suddenly improve at that point? Does the wheel have this secret point it springs on you??
Another one of your tricks. Don´t argue these points just make it a joke. Nice kind of proper discussion!
Its nothing personal against winkel. Not even remotely. I sincerely feel bad when i deflate someone's balloon and tell them santa isn't real. But it's beneficial for them still.
Nothing personal? Guru, misleading, etc.etc.? you are joking again.
You can´t deflate my balloon, there never ever was one. What about your balloon?
And it is not very beneficial for me being calle names and made joke of af arguments instead of a "wanted proper discussion"
Where i don't feel bad is when they realistically know, after so long, that they've been misleading people. And any embarrassment brought to them is just how it plays out.
Where and how did I mislead people?
I called it strategy from the beginning, not system!
I always and again and again I said: Test it, try it leanr it, before you bet on it. Other members build programs which helped to test and to figure out the idea of this strategy.
I never sold it or parts of it.
Where how or why did I mislead anyone.
Where i especially dont feel bad about it is when the guru clearly knows, is arrogant about it, and continues the charade.
Charade another qualified proof that GUT doesn´t work? I´,m arrogant? Yes because I clearly see I´m a better person and debater than you. Do I have the right (Sorry, stolen phrase)
These are the kind of people that deliberately use unrealistic games, play money leaderboards, and spend an awful lot of time convincing their play money wins is proof of their superiority over everyone. The master. Thats what narcissists do.
Now we change to the impressing arguments about GUT. Th creator is a narcisst. This clearly proofs you are right steve. Sorry, No! It proofs you are not clever enough to be part of a "proper discussion"
In the end, there will be genuine people who make mistakes, and narcissists who lie through their teeth to keep their charade going. And sometimes there might be a genuine guru with the true hg.
So how can anyone know the difference? Mostly by understanding what does and doesn't work, and why. Lots of proper testing. And using your own common sense. People shouldn't be so damn gullible.
God thanks it is open now: Steve is the only person with a common sense. all other expecially people who are just interested in GUT have no common sense. They just follow a GURU. They are so stupid to allow to be mislead. All sucking dimp people. But have hope. Steve is here to help and save you.
And now the best for you Steve. Here is a picture of som spins. Pls answer:
Are there crossings?
Do they cross?
Do all win? No!
Do all lose? No!
Is there a way to distingish one from the other?
You answer will be: No there are Odds!
The highest alert for Steve is: GUT is flat betting.
There is no need to create a progression to it. All bad strategies or systems can´t stay away from progressions.
But GUT can.
Winkel this is like a game of tennis, an its advantage Winkel, oh you just aced him game set and match Winkel.
It'll be like Brexit, Steve will bleat on and on and on, yawn its boring Steve
Quote from: nottophammer on Jul 31, 08:16 AM 2018RG, just wound up Normy on MPR, said i wont press ready, but the good old boy i am i did.
So "who are you" is you? :question: :xd: :xd: :xd:
Thanks for being READY O0
Winkel, your response was just a mixed up mess, and big sob story. Poor winkel for rightfully being questioned.
So am i right about my understanding of how your system is supposed to work? You said everything except for what mattered.
I guess i was correct... you wait until the crossing is about to occur, then bet.
So what makes this moment magical? Whatmales your chances of winning better? I wont call it changing the odds, because youll complain again.
If i only use this betvselection, will i win more than i lose? Or is the secret part you hold needed?
Quote from: winkel on Jul 31, 03:05 PM 2018Another one of your tricks. Don´t argue these points just make it a joke. Nice kind of proper discussion!
This is your response to the question that matters. You call it a "trick". No winkel.
Im trying to understand why you think this works.
Your other responses were similarly pointless, backwards, based on misunderstandings, and messy. So lets make it simple and focus on the one point.
Quote from: Steve on Jul 31, 05:17 PM 2018
So what makes this moment magical? Whatmales your chances of winning better? I wont call it changing the odds, because youll complain again.
No magic in there. Just simple logic. As the time goes forward with more spins it will cross. He tries to get the exact point looking at “if†and “butâ€.
Odd changing? When someone win it must be a changed odd to ur favour either done by u or random itself changed the odd to ur favour bcz in ur language random is unpredictable. These people are tring to use that point where random gives a favour while using their system.
There might be better explanation for their winning but at the moment we dont know that.
When we get that, ur answer will be given to the point. Winning doesnt happen without any reason when random means unpredictable.
A crossing will happen. It’s a guarantee
GUT gives you a tool/place to bet and what to bet
I don’t think Steve understands it
No odds changing
Just helping the bettor make decisions
Steve and Caleb are off the deep end with the whole winkel thing
Quote from: Steve on Jul 31, 05:17 PM 2018
I guess i was correct... you wait until the crossing is about to occur, then bet.
mainly:Yes
So what makes this moment magical? Whatmales your chances of winning better? I wont call it changing the odds, because youll complain again.
It is not magic
If i only use this betvselection, will i win more than i lose? Or is the secret part you hold needed?
Again: there are no secret parts in finding the crossing.
If there is a crossing to appear:
I check how it was created. (pls look former answers you made just a joke out of)
I check at which spin this crossing appears
I check how often I have lost/won this crossing at this spin (no matter if really bet or just watched)
I make an educated guess.
btw: your answers and replies were just a mixed up mess, and big sob story. Poor Steve for rightfully being answered.
The crossing has to happen, but we cannot say when - similar to repeats. Each bet for a crossing is independent of previous bets.
The more numbers a crossing requires the more chance you have of winning. The less numbers a crossing requires the least chance you have of winning. In the end the result is break even and lose to the house.
Now, it surprises me how Steve seems like the most logical person here in terms of roulette lies/facts - yet he's not quite smart enough to understand the psychology behind global deceptions for some reason. If Steve could truly understand deceptions then he could understand the globe earth lie, so I think it's a problem with understanding the bigger picture that's holding him back. Usually, it's people's defence mechanisms, but with Steve I think he just looks at things too literally and out of context, and doesn't seem to understand the deeper side, including dark comedy/satire. It would be nice to walk Steve step-by-step thru the flat earth as part of a separate topic - but it would require the same level of cooperation that Steve has managed to get from both winkel and turbo during the past few months. On the flip-side, Turbo was surprisingly very logical when it came to the flat earth, but not Roulette.
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Jul 31, 06:47 PM 2018
The crossing has to happen, but we cannot say when - similar to repeats. Each bet for a crossing is independent of previous bets.
I agree. From that point of 19vs 18 next spin will it cross or not ? No one knows. But wht if i give u next 5 spin to be correct. Winkle has his own observation to be correct 2 times out of 3.
Its the same thing u described the pegion thing.
Theoritically dozen can come 1 2 3 then 0. But is the practical like that?
Quote from: RouletteGhost on Jul 31, 06:12 PM 2018A crossing will happen. It’s a guarantee
I read through the whole GUT thread. I have one question to ask though. We are waiting for 19 : 18 as a crossing and then bet on 19 numbers. Now why not 20:17 or 21:16. 20:17 will become 19:18, 21:16 has to become 20:17. Why is 19:18 different from others. I am not able to get my head around this and any clarification would be appreciated.
Quote from: Tinsoldiers on Jul 31, 07:33 PM 2018
I read through the whole GUT thread. I have one question to ask though. We are waiting for 19 : 18 as a crossing and then bet on 19 numbers. Now why not 20:17 or 21:16. 20:17 will become 19:18, 21:16 has to become 20:17. Why is 19:18 different from others. I am not able to get my head around this and any clarification would be appreciated.
Its not different . U can use ur way. This is authors way. Normally 19vs 18 not recommended to play. U can start 17vs 16. U can have second chance within the range of payout in that way. The author has made his own observation and statistical calculation from these point. I mean wht if and but things
Quote from: RouletteGhost on Jul 31, 06:12 PM 2018A crossing will happen. It’s a guarantee
GUT gives you a tool/place to bet and what to bet
Will happen - nobody says that not, but when?
I here not see the difference between waiting XX spins where hit red and then bet on black... Simply are created two groups - one hit many (18) times and betting are on the opposite.
But all these waiting do not give any advantage. In situation 19-18 we can bet on 19 with chances to be hit 19/37 or bet on 18 with chances 18/37, but still, payment is less than our chances...
Can anyone show me this 1/37 chance meets with reality. Or a coin flip 50:50 in reality
Quote from: Tinsoldiers on Jul 31, 07:33 PM 2018I read through the whole GUT thread. I have one question to ask though. We are waiting for 19 : 18 as a crossing and then bet on 19 numbers. Now why not 20:17 or 21:16. 20:17 will become 19:18, 21:16 has to become 20:17. Why is 19:18 different from others. I am not able to get my head around this and any clarification would be appreciated.
Crossing or not, all situations have a negative EV. I bet that Winkel won't answer you in this case, because he refers to bet crossings only. Makes no difference, all -EV.
Quote from: winkel on Jul 31, 03:05 PM 2018Is there a way to distingish one from the other? You answer will be: No there are Odds!
19/18 crossing = odds of 19/37? Leads, like other crossings, to a negative EV.
Quote from: Madi on Jul 31, 05:52 PM 2018No magic in there. Just simple logic.
The logic is simple. The problem is its incorrect.
Quote from: Madi on Jul 31, 05:52 PM 2018Odd changing? When someone win it must be a changed odd to ur favour either done by u or random itself changed the odd
Here's an example. Wins can and do occur without changing odds. You appear to be saying wins occur because of a change in odds.
You say the change is done either by the player, or "random itself".
The player could change the odds with proper bet selection. But "random" doesn't change odds. Its like saying "statistics changes statistics".
Quote from: Madi on Jul 31, 05:52 PM 2018bcz in ur language random is unpredictable
Well, yes. My language is English, and the definition includes "a process of selection in which each item of a set has an equal probability of being chosen"
Quote from: Madi on Jul 31, 05:52 PM 2018These people are tring to use that point where random gives a favour while using their system.
I understand what they're trying to do. What you meant to say "they are trying to use a trigger to improve their odds".
Since when did "odds" become such a taboo word? I thought it was kinda relevant and important. Now if you dare say it (odds), the response is "blabla". That's because when odds are considered, we find a particular strategy is no better than random bets. That upsets some people.
Quote from: Madi on Jul 31, 05:52 PM 2018There might be better explanation for their winning but at the moment we dont know that.
I already explained it at link:s://:.roulettephysics.com/roulette-strategy/#the-illusion-of-a-winning-system (link:s://:.roulettephysics.com/roulette-strategy/#the-illusion-of-a-winning-system)
Quote from: Madi on Jul 31, 05:52 PM 2018Winning doesnt happen without any reason when random means unpredictable.
There isnt no reason. The reason is the occasional win is probable. It doesnt matter considering the payouts are below the odds.
Quote from: RouletteGhost on Jul 31, 06:12 PM 2018GUT gives you a tool/place to bet and what to bet I don’t think Steve understands it
Actually I do understand it.
Quote from: RouletteGhost on Jul 31, 06:12 PM 2018No odds changing
Just helping the bettor make decisions
And I understand GUTs is being used to help the player decide where to bet. I get it RG.
What I don't understand is why the player thinks GUTs method of bet selection is any better than random.
I mean you may as well just choose 18 random numbers, and not bet on any of those - just bet the 19 other numbers. The accuracy is no different.
Quote from: winkel on Jul 31, 06:21 PM 2018I check how it was created. (pls look former answers you made just a joke out of)
I check at which spin this crossing appears
I check how often I have lost/won this crossing at this spin (no matter if really bet or just watched)
I make an educated guess.
Yes I understand. But you didnt answer my question. Why is the crossing point so magical?
Fact is it is not. You will get the same accuracy of predictions whether you waited for 18 non-hits, or just chose 18 random numbers.
You have said many times you dont care about the odds. So you dont care about winning more than you would than with random bets.
Quote from: RouletteGhost on Jul 31, 06:12 PM 2018No odds changing
Just helping the bettor make decisions
You said it here RG. Do you even know what "no odds changing" means?
It means your bet selection is as bad as random. That means nothing has changed.
I could use whatever incredibly complex "system to help me make decisions", but it's useless if it changes nothing. Im not sure why you think otherwise.
Quote from: winkel on Jul 31, 03:05 PM 2018Is there a way to distingish one from the other?
Different colored lines?
Quote from: winkel on Jul 31, 03:11 PM 2018GUT is flat betting.
If I flat bet starting with the 19 numbers, I get much the same result as flat betting 19 random numbers. Then if i continue, at any point I get much the same result as more flat betting random numbers.
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Jul 31, 06:47 PM 2018Now, it surprises me how Steve seems like the most logical person here in terms of roulette lies/facts - yet he's not quite smart enough to understand the psychology behind global deceptions for some reason. If Steve could truly understand deceptions then he could understand the globe earth lie, so I think it's a problem with understanding the bigger picture that's holding him back
This is not the place for flat earth crap. I wasted lots of time on it, and found the flat earther's arguments were just bad understanding.
Quote from: Madi on Jul 31, 07:02 PM 2018I agree. From that point of 19vs 18 next spin will it cross or not ? No one knows. But wht if i give u next 5 spin to be correct. Winkle has his own observation to be correct 2 times out of 3.
Could you or someone explain the secret that makes all the difference? Because in my tests I get results no better than random.
Quote from: Madi on Jul 31, 10:26 PM 2018Can anyone show me this 1/37 chance meets with reality
How about centuries of roulette in casinos? Is that enough proof for you? If one number is bet, players average wins 1 in 37 spins. But the casino pays only 35-1. Its kind of old news. If you need verification of roulette's odds and probabilities, verification is not hard to find.
Quote from: TheMind on Aug 01, 12:01 AM 2018Crossing or not, all situations have a negative EV.
That kind of talk is too technical for them.
Quote from: TheMind on Aug 01, 12:01 AM 2018I bet that Winkel won't answer you in this case, because he refers to bet crossings only. Makes no difference, all
Yes when I queried him about odds vs payouts, and how he overcomes the discrepancy, he said he doesn't need to.
Summary so far:
1. Winkel says GUT doesnt change the odds, and doesn't need to. So his bets are as bad as random, but that's ok because he still wins.
2. Winkel says GUT tells the player when to bet with the best chance of winning. But it doesn't change the probability of winning (the odds).
3. Winkel says he doesn't hold secrets. Only some of them.
The conclusion so far:
a. Winkel doesnt understand what odds are, or their relevance.
b. My testing of his method shows results no better than random bets.
c. As he hasn't disclosed his secrets, a full test of his system is not possible. It will probably never be possible. Perhaps that's the point.
Winkel, its not a conspiracy. I dont think anybody cares about attacking your reputation. If ANYONE came to a forum with claims like "I have random accuracy bet selection, but still win", they are going to be rightfully questioned. Don't take it personally.
I dont believe after all this time you could have a "winning system" and not know what odds are. I also dont believe after all this time you, or people who have been using GUT, wouldn't have profited substantially from it. At most we hear about the occasional win, which is no different to the average system that wins for a while, then tanks.
With some research, you find GUT has been sufficiently tested. Any serious testing found it to fail. There's much more, but here's one example from another forum:
QuoteHello,
Although I read this board quite often this is my first post here.
I find the subject of GUT interesting.
Because others still think it is an interesting subject.
I have analyzed and tried GUT.
The BASICS for the method:
Separate the spin-results into groups - for EXAMPLE:
"=1" - all numbers that have exactly one hit
">1" - all numbers that have more than one hit
All numbers will eventually hit once and be in the "=1" group.
All numbers will eventually also hit AGAIN and then be MOVED to the ">1" group.
And eventually the ">1" group will be larger than the "=1" group.
What Winkel does is to tally the groups.
He looks for the "=1" group to contain ONE LESS number or IS EQUAL to the ">1" group.
When this happens the bet is on the "=1" group.
The theory is that a number in the "=1" group hits and is moved to the ">1" group.
Because this will always happen eventually.
And that theory is CORRECT.
You can use other groups as well:
"=0" (No hits at all)
"=2" (Exactly 2 hits)
">2" (More than 2 hits)
etc etc
Winkel makes recommendations for which groups to use and compare.
He started his GUT-thread saying he had two versions:
One version with static rules and one version that is "advanced".
He claimed that BOTH version will win in long-term tests.
He "proved" the "static" version by doing a 3-months(?) test.
I think it was later shown to be incorrect.
(Not following his own static rules)
The "static" version was tested real long-term testing by another member and found to be a loser.
After that test Winkel claims that "gambler's intelligence" is needed in order to win.
That is also his "advanced" version.
"Gambler's intelligence": Being able to predict what is going to happen.
I also tested the "static" method and found it ... well ... at least not winning consistently.
But no real long-term testing.
The method is like many others:
"Wait for some predefined situation and then bet that something predefined will happen"
(It is called "gambler's fallacy" I think.)
...Wait for "=1" to be one less or equal to ">1" and then bet that "=1" will hit
Because it will, eventually.
The problem is "eventually" - how far into the future is it?
It is not "gambler's intelligence" that is needed.
It is "gambler's fallacy" that is built into the method.
And: If you actually have such "gambler's intelligence" that is needed to win...
Why do you need a method?
Johnny
BTW, I haven't been following that VLS GUT-thread for a while now.
Maybe something new there?
I think the GUT-discussion is dead on "Roulette-board"...
I think this part sums it up:
QuoteThe "static" version was tested real long-term testing by another member and found to be a loser.
After that test Winkel claims that "gambler's intelligence" is needed in order to win.
That is also his "advanced" version.
"Gambler's intelligence": Being able to predict what is going to happen.
In order to win, you need to guess right.
Could you or someone explain the secret that makes all the difference? Because in my tests I get results no better than random.
What i understand is after 18 hit the wave of appearing number is preety predictable lets say
After 18 hit 3 unhit , then 2 number 1s to 2s again 2 unhit , 1 2s to 3s. Fluctuation is not much.
14vs 13 bet
15vs 13 lose . No bet
16vs 13 no bet
15vs 14 bet .win . As the fluctuation is less it might help. But exactly its not possible to predict that ,this crossing must cross next spin
Madi then what you are doing is chasing a stream of "maybes". It makes manual testing extremely laborious and in my tests I have not found anything special about the bet selection. Just same accuracy as random.
Although I've done lots of testing of similar principles, others have done more testing of this specific strategy, and with much the same results others have found. I'm guessing I lack the "gamblers intelligence" Winkel says you need.
Here's another one:
QuoteI'm not defending or lambasting the G.U.T. as I have spent some time trying to figure out whether it was solid. The fact is, I have to agree that it is just another theory based on betting unhit numbers. I know about unhit numbers as I have based several systems around the idea myself. One of the systems I came up which is an offspring of Diodoro's Ludomeccanica(MySystem1 on the freeadult website), outperforms the G.U.T. through and through, and is much simpler to apply. I did not bring this up though, for fear of a scathing reply from Winkel, who seems to honestly believe that his G.U.T. is actually the Holy Grail. While I agree that it is ingenious, it is not something that should have taken 5 years to develop as its premise is quite simplistic in nature. I developed a similiar system recently with inspiration from the G.U.T. It is a take on the G.U.T., but instead of number crossings, you bet on sector crossings using Kimo Li's matrix idea. Unfortunately, the same thing tends to happen that happens a lot when I test the G.U.T.; numbers continuously repeat for spin after spin and deplete your bankroll to the point that it would take hours of successful play to recover it. I'm not saying that couldn't happen, but the chances are you will have at least one more bad run before you stop playing. In a nutshell, the losses will outweigh the wins in the long run, making it a losing system. I think Winkel is a talented system designer, but I think he needs to keep looking, because the G.U.T. is not the Holy Grail.
U can call it gambler intelligence or gamblers experience. But in the field it needed. We cant tie a game of roulette with exact hard and fist rule, need to be bit flexiable.
I have read somewhere he is one of the top ranked player . He is not a teen. As he is saying he is winning for 14 years . There may be something that we r missing
Quote from: Madi on Aug 01, 01:24 AM 2018U can call it gambler intelligence or gamblers experience. But in the field it needed.
Sounds more like gambler's delusion. But can you give an example of using this "ability"? I'd like to know if there is some logic behind it, or more like gut instinct (pun semi-intended).
Quote from: Madi on Aug 01, 01:24 AM 2018I have read somewhere he is one of the top ranked player . He is not a teen. As he is saying he is winning for 14 years .
If we believed everything we heard or read, we'd be very misled.
Quote from: Madi on Aug 01, 01:24 AM 2018There may be something that we r missing
Thats how it ends with all the gurus. The followers arent getting the results they expect, so wonder what they're missing.
Winkel, please send me a link to your e-Book via PM. I will develop your system,and distribute the results here in the forum. The best promotion for you, isn't it?
Here's an old quote from winkel:
Quotethese clinical test-rules are only made up for testing. It is not the game!
The G.U.T needs human decisions due to what I call "What is going on"
This tool by KFS allows everybody to watch when or why a 50-spin-trot is losing
Your decisions might be:
Stopping to play in a Plus
Stopping the game in a Minus
Bet or bet not a crossing due to the way it came up, where it came up
As KFS also proofed: betting every crossing over a long period will lead to -2,7%.
only
[highlight]Your decisions will make you win[/highlight]
Summary (from winkel's own post):
1. The test rules arent really how to play GUT. So ignore test results.
2. GUT needs "human decisions" due to what he calls "what is going on". You need to know when or why a 50 spin trot is losing (maybe the reason for loss is the ball just isn't landing on what you hoped?)
3. Your decisions might be:
- Stopping to play in a Plus
- Stopping the game in a Minus
- Bet or bet not a crossing due to the way it came up, where it came up
Your decisions play a role in whether you win or lose.
4. Betting every crossing over a long period will lead to -2,7% (the house edge). So I guess dont play long term, and don't play GUT how it was designed. You need the X-factor, so you know when to bend or break the rules.
Quote from: Steve on Aug 01, 01:46 AM 20184. Betting every crossing over a long period will lead to -2,7% (the house edge).
Steve....So how is Winkel using a decision maker called GUT any different from pregognition.
I know which one sounds like cloud cuckoo land to me.
As I said several times before - all is very simple, only must be a brave player and do an open test where I will see bets and results - from that I can calculate very exact - can the player to win, or that is questionable.
With Vb accuracy of predictions can be evaluated by distance where ball land from a predicted number - +/-2 is better than +/-5, this is better than +/-9 and so on.
With system players such we can't do, but are another method - where player himself evaluate which numbers have more chances to hit which - less - so player sort winning number in his mind to some groups accordingly chance to hit and after play simply do calculations if he was right and in which % was right.
Quote from: Turner on Aug 01, 02:46 AM 2018So how is Winkel using a decision maker called GUT any different from pregognition.
It occured to me success with gut may be attributed, although unlikely, to precog. But its more likely variance. Ie some players win, some lose.
Precognition, assuming its legit, requires both natural ability and lots of development.
The gut bet selection method, minus possible precog, is mathematically the same as random bets with long term loss.
If i had to choose between a method that is relatively new and unexplored but with positive research from reputable groups.... or mathematically random bets.....id find the first approach the better choice. Anything is better than something we already know for sure doesnt work., wouldnt you agree?
On that note, i believe sometimes there is beginners luck although it may be related to precog. Because the player just plays on a whim. But when they think too much, or hold on tight, thats when precog has no chance of being effective.
Im not saying this is definite. Just a theory.
Steve, I'm not sure why this back and forth between you and Winkel is still going on. Didn't he say he would give all the betting rules to you if you signed a non-disclosure agreement and agreed to give him the majority of the profits if you sold GUT?
He told me that gambler's intelligence is based on experience and empirical results, which kind of suggests it can all be coded. But I agree, if it can't be coded and success depends on it, then it's really no different from precognition, and GUT is irrelevant because you could use it (gamblers intelligence) with any system.
Lets say for a second that gut really is a roundabout way of using precog that winkel isnt even aware of. As success appears to rely heavily on guessing, its possible.
The crossings may serve as a distraction for the conscious mind, to allow the subconscious to work.
In this context, i believe gut has possible merit. But in a mathematical system context, guts bet selection is no better than random bets. So if gut was working for someone over a statistically relevant amount of spins, precog may be the reason. Or it could be plain variance.
Would it make gut special? No. The working principle is not crossings. There are surely far better and more direct ways of applying precog. The overall best in trials i know of is called majority vote, explained in the outside the box board.
Joe, some of what he says suggest guessing, and some suggests secret concrete algorithms. He can confirm what the case is exactly, but expect a vague response.
As for coding it, pretty hard to code if its not clear.
Quote from: Steve on Aug 01, 03:49 AM 2018If i had to choose between a method that is relatively new and unexplored but with positive research from reputable groups....
Do you mean Daryl Bem's results? According to Wikipedia they were shown to be flawed.
link:s://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precognition
Quote"Feeling the Future"
In 2011, the psychologist Daryl Bem, a Professor Emeritus at Cornell University, published the article "Feeling the Future: Experimental Evidence for Anomalous Retroactive Influences on Cognition and Affect" in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, offering statistical evidence for precognition.[26] The paper itself was criticised.[27] The publication of such a paper by a respected researcher in an upper tier journal also prompted wider debate on the validity of peer review process for allowing it.[28] Bem appeared on MSNBC and The Colbert Report to discuss the experiment.[29][30]
Jeffrey Rouder and Richard Morey applied a meta-analytical Bayes factor to Bem's data and concluded that, "We remain unconvinced of the viability of ESP. There is no plausible mechanism for it, and it seems contradicted by well-substantiated theories in both physics and biology. Against this background, a change in odds of 40 is negligible.[31][32]
Psychologist James Alc*** claimed to have found serious methodological flaws (metaphorical "dirty test tubes") such as changing the procedures part way through the experiments and combining results of tests with different chances of significance. It was not recorded how many tests were actually performed, nor was there an explanation of how it was determined that participants shown erotic images had "settled down" afterwards. Bem's response to Alc***'s critique appeared online at the Skeptical Inquirer website and Alc*** replied to these comments in a third article on the same website.[33][34]
In 2012, the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology published an independent attempt to reproduce Bem's results, which failed to do so.[35][36]
Quote from: Steve on Aug 01, 04:30 AM 2018As for coding it, pretty hard to code if its not clear.
It would be impossible. :)
I know all about bad or flawed tests. I base my opinions on what i believe are proper tests from reputable groups, procedures with replicable results, my own experiences, and my own testing.
The same tests have been replicated by others. Also see the global consciousness project. Theres a lot more.
Im a reasonable person. I know how some people view precog. I wasnt born yesterday. Considering everything, i believe it has clear merit.
Quote from: Steve on Aug 01, 03:49 AM 2018wouldnt you agree?
I never rule out something I havnt studied my self.....and I havnt studied it
All I can say right now is "it SOUNDS like a load of Bollox to me"
I cant say "it IS a load of bollox"
Thats good. But im basing what i say about gut on a lot more "testing and experience", than "how I think it sounds".
Its the same case with precog, but a higher degree of that isnt reliant on empirical evidence. For now. There is still empirical evidence, just not enough to be conclusive.
We each have only our experience and knowledge to go on. It varies between people, which why people disagree. But truth isnt based on opinion. Its based on what-is, backed by testing. Thats why i say what i say
Steve, the global consciousness project reminds me of Rupert Sheldrake's theory of Morphic Resonance, which is more about telepathy than precog. He's an interesting bloke and has set up several experiments on his website that anyone can take part in. link:s://:.sheldrake.org/research/telepathy
Pity that telepathy is useless for roulette though, unless the casino happens to be cheating you, then you could read their minds. ;D
Yes it's maybe more telepathy. At this stage i don't think we even understand what it is we're calling precog, and what might be happening. Either way my own experience with it, i believe is conclusive enough. The amount of times small events like thinking of someone moments before they call, then they call. Especially when i haven't thought of them in a long time. There's too much for me to dismiss. One day i'll write a book explaining everything I've learned, which I'm sure many people will identify with. If it leads nowhere, so be it.
One important thing about precog, i believe is usually overlooked, is the future is fluid and not set. If decisions aren't made and variables in place, precog is like watching a movie that isn't written. It can't happen.
I believe precog is a form of attaching part of yourself to a flow, not perceived by 5 senses.
Also predicting an arbitrary number may be too difficult. Instead, predicting the area of winning number makes more sense to us. Anyway i'll leave all this for another time.
Quote from: Tinsoldiers on Jul 31, 07:33 PM 2018
I read through the whole GUT thread. I have one question to ask though. We are waiting for 19 : 18 as a crossing and then bet on 19 numbers. Now why not 20:17 or 21:16. 20:17 will become 19:18, 21:16 has to become 20:17. Why is 19:18 different from others. I am not able to get my head around this and any clarification would be appreciated.
The answer is probably too simple: There are no crossings.
Or may be it’s not too simple. The basic premise of crossings I understand is that it has to happen. So 19:18 has to become 18:19. But so is, 20-17 right. 19:18 has to happen from 20:17. One number has to cross over from one side to other. Or am I missing something. I admire what has been written and the effort spent and the analysis of trots. But what am able to get my head around is why is crossing important than any other combination. Am sure there is an explanation for this
Quote from: Bebediktus3 on Jul 31, 09:48 PM 2018
Will happen - nobody says that not, but when?
I here not see the difference between waiting XX spins where hit red and then bet on black... Simply are created two groups - one hit many (18) times and betting are on the opposite.
But all these waiting do not give any advantage. In situation 19-18 we can bet on 19 with chances to be hit 19/37 or bet on 18 with chances 18/37, but still, payment is less than our chances...
It is not htat simple. I wonder why nobody read what I did write explaining the difference in the same crossing.
18-10
17-11
16-12
15-13
14-14
do you see how this crsooing developed? It developed by 4 non-hits in a row. You have to decide, whether this trend is going on, so bet on 14 non-hits. Or you can decide to bet on the opposite that now this trend will be broken and bet on 14 once-hits.
Perhaps we need some more informations.
14-17
14-16
14-15
14-14
How did this one develop? It is the same crossing 14-14. Can you imagine that there is a difference between 14-14(first example) and 14-14(second example)?
second example which is not taken in consideration:
19-18 is first shown at spin 18 wiht 18 unhits (F0) hit in a row.
Here we have no information what could happen next.
Now look at this ( I have to take the third count as well it is F>1)
F0 F1 F>1
26 09 02
25 10 02
24 11 02
24 10 03
24 09 04
23 10 04
22 11 04
21 12 04
20 13 04
20 12 05
20 11 06
19 12 06
could this give us some hints what could happen next?
Perhaps we need some further informations.
This is only a question! But if you stick on 19-18 as an example and compare it to EC-betting I can´t help.
Lets take the last situation
19 12 6
we know where it came from (20 11 06)
but it could have come from these fre former counts
20 11 06 (and a F0 hit)
19 13 05 (and a F1 hit)
19 12 06 (and a F>1 hit)
Now lets have a look to what our count 19 12 06 can change
18 13 06 (if a F0 hits in the next spin)
19 11 07 (if a F1 hits)
19 12 06 (if a F>1 hits)
There are no secrets just a "not remembering" of what I already wrote, also in this thread!
lets take another example:
We all know the saying: in 36(37) spins 1/3 will not hit 1/3 will hit once and 1/3 will hit more than once.
Now lets talk about truth:
lets take this "wrong saying" and take a situation at spin 36 where there were only 12 unhit left.
This is the truth at spin 36:
(see first picture)
This is the truth at spin 37:
(see second picture)
Quote from: Steve on Aug 01, 12:22 AM 2018
...
Since when did "odds" become such a taboo word? I thought it was kinda relevant and important. Now if you dare say it (odds), the response is "blabla". That's because when odds are considered, we find a particular strategy is no better than random bets. That upsets some people.
....
If the word "odds" is the answer to every argument, if "odds" itself is an argument, If "odds" is the only argument, If "odds" is the holy truth, if your research has only to be on "odds" otherwise it is wrong.
Then is "odds" blabla
Quote from: Steve on Aug 01, 12:32 AM 2018
Different colored lines?
Another proof of your understanding of "proper discussion"
Don´t discuss what is shown in the graph, discuss the coulours, the size, the flies poo on it.
Winkel
Don’t waste your time
It is pointless for reasons you probably know
Just continue winning and those that use your principles will also continue to win
Not worth the energy justifying anything
What I wanted to show:
a crossing e.g. 15-14-8 can appear at different spins
it can have different origins where it comes from
it can only have 3 ways to go to
All this in combination and the statistic can help me make decisions
15 14 8 has these probabilities: 15/37 or 14/37 or 8/37. which is the highest probability?
15 unhit at this spin I registered 25 losses and 12 wins. What number has to grow?
How big can the difference between losses and wins at this spin with this 15 14 8 become?
BUT: If you just check 15-14 as a crossing, no matter AT what spin, no matter where it comes from, than ofcourse you are bound to the odds.
Quote from: RouletteGhost on Aug 01, 09:11 AM 2018
Winkel
Don’t waste your time
It is pointless for reasons you probably know
Just continue winning and those that use your principles will also continue to win
Not worth the energy justifying anything
I think this would be the best.
Quote from: winkel on Aug 01, 09:14 AM 2018All this in combination and the statistic can help me make decisions
15 14 8 has these probabilities: 15/37 or 14/37 or 8/37. which is the highest probability?
15 unhit at this spin I registered 25 losses and 12 wins. What number has to grow?
Nothing from this can help to do the decision, because all that are results, but the ball hit to pocket because some reason and that reason is not previous results, but a place where ball finally will lose its kinetical energy and cant move more...
Quote from: Bebediktus3 on Aug 01, 09:23 AM 2018
Nothing from this can help to do the decision, because all that are results, but the ball hit to pocket because some reason and that reason is not previous results, but a place where ball finally will lose its kinetical energy and cant move more...
In short: If I bet I have no chance.
If you bet you have a win.
If you were right, probability wouldn´t exist. did you ever think about?
Quote from: winkel on Aug 01, 09:32 AM 2018In short: If I bet I have no chance.
If you bet you have a win.
We talk not about me - we talk about help GUT or not.
Simply are reasons and are results - and you mix them.
Quote from: winkel on Aug 01, 09:32 AM 2018If you were right, probability wouldn´t exist.
Why not exist? Simply probability also results :) .
The ball hit in concrete number, not because of some probabilities. Are reasons and not possible to mix them.
If you drank too much and fallen - the drink is the reason for fall, but not fall is the reason for the drink....
Quote from: Bebediktus3 on Aug 01, 09:23 AM 2018
but a place where ball finally will lose its kinetical energy and cant move more...
One can argue that it is result as well and not reason. Who cares
Quote from: Tinsoldiers on Aug 01, 09:53 AM 2018One can argue that it is result as well and not reason. Who cares
Can argue but what from that - we can argue that earth is flat also - what that change.
If you walk in street and found 100 dollars - the reason is that they were in that place, but these dollars was in that place not because you here walked :)
I can say you one moment, from mine personal text - imagine that ball fall in some orbit and meet wheel. Now think about such: say all spins are ideally the same till contact with wheel. And when that contact occurs what have main importance?
Yes, you are right :) - wheel speed - after contact with the wheel are very different ball behavior when the wheel is slow and when it is fast. And what is very important - usually some numbers catch ball easier on low rotor speed, some numbers - on fast speed. Pay attention to that and simply from that, you can reach some advantage...
GUT divide numbers accordingly which fall in previous times - I suggest divide numbers to groups accordingly wheel speed. The only left -learn, how visually recognize wheel speed...
Reminds me of
Also this
(link:s://s8.postimg.cc/plvqq4dx1/Streetlight_Effect_or_Drunkard_s_Search.jpg)
Tin
19-18
here's time stamp 98th set of 216 sets
98
Timestamp: 2018-07-15 15:35:06 UTC
21
24
25
35
3
22
23
29
7
36
13
30
27
17
12
2
15
28
4
26
19
10
26
3
19
34
24
24
9
0
6
10
1
34
25
14
7
15
6
14
21
34
34
2
20
2
4
32
36
29
32
16
11
11
26
4
35
26
30
7
30
7
30
15
10
7
35
4
18
25
22
30
20
5
19
24
23
36
22
4
19
35
8
7
15
36
22
35
6
32
8
10
35
4
10
34
16
2
10
32
35
18
35
18
22
21
5
9
0
7
1
23
32
1
22
34
27
33
3
0
0
5
28
6
33
7
11
5
22
31
5
15
27
26
31
35
30
8
26
9
19
8
36
27
9
34
28
4