Many people want to know how to win but not everyone is willing to sit there and think. Why would this work? Why would this not work? They just want to look at numbers and spreadsheet without understanding what they are looking at. If you really want to find a way to win. You have to use your brain! You have to understand what you are looking at!
People ask me should I try this approach and what if I do this.. “what do you think?â€
Now, why would it matter what I think? Why exactly do YOU think it will work?
If there is no solid reason of why you want to do something or what your goal is? Then how do you know if you found it or not?
Anyone that says you can only win playing “MY WAY†is lying. You can win many different ways.
***As I add more steps I will put them in order of importance. I had no intention of doing this topic and sort of just happened so this isn’t planned. But we will be exploring beating the game of roulette
Imagine there wasn’t a table limit and you had infinite money. You can easily beat the game just using a martingale approach.
So table limits protect the casino.
What protects the player?
Now we figured out... One step to beat this game is to have some sort of protection or some form of limit! This limit can be your funds but what if we take a step more advanced....
Martingale would survive a very long losing session so casino put a limit on the session by controlling the amount of funds you can use but this also controls how long your session can go before you hit the table limit.
So what if we put a limit on our session. This would control how long our session will continue losing or winning.
Some players like the get in and get out approach which is good but they are using it incorrectly. They are using it on a random game which will give you random results. This form of approach will work better in some form of a controlled environment.
How to beat this game!
Step 1 - limit your session
So now...How do we limit our session?
Anyone?
Define your bet..it’s parameters..it’s bet length .to .the most likely strike rate it takes to finish that outcome
I hope you’re a better teacher than Priyanka. :wink:
Quote from: 6th-sense on Sep 25, 01:35 PM 2019
Define your bet..it’s parameters..it’s bet length .to .the most likely strike rate it takes to finish that outcome
A cycle would be a limit also
Quote from: Blood Angel on Sep 25, 01:44 PM 2019A cycle would be a limit
I would say the longest simple (not compounded) cycle are 37 numbers.
In the limit there has to be a repeat at spin #38. (I know, very little probability, too expensive, table limit )
There are smaller cycles ( splits, lines, ...)
Quote from: Blueprint on Sep 25, 01:43 PM 2019
I hope you’re a better teacher than Priyanka. :wink:
Priyanka was a very good teacher. It’s just not easy to explain an approach when there are so many different things to investigate. Also difficult to explain and put into words why something works
Quote from: 6th-sense on Sep 25, 01:35 PM 2019
Define your bet..it’s parameters..it’s bet length .to .the most likely strike rate it takes to finish that outcome
So knowing what to bet and for how long.
Basically understanding every aspect.
I agree
Quote from: Blood Angel on Sep 25, 01:44 PM 2019
A cycle would be a limit also
Yes cycles can be seen as limits
Quote from: Herby on Sep 25, 02:14 PM 2019
I would say the longest simple (not compounded) cycle are 37 numbers.
In the limit there has to be a repeat at spin #38. (I know, very little probability, too expensive, table limit )
There are smaller cycles ( splits, lines, ...)
Very well spotted... different groups have different limits
Quote from: MoneyT101 on Sep 25, 02:29 PM 2019Priyanka was a very good teacher.
I see it very different but please proceed.
Quote from: MoneyT101 on Sep 25, 02:33 PM 2019different groups have different limits
groups of the same family have the same limit
Quote from: MoneyT101 on Sep 25, 02:31 PM 2019
So knowing what to bet and for how long.
Basically understanding every aspect.
I agree
this is the most important part..risk vs reward ..the key is to set up a risk reward to the minimal amount ...this is the most advantage thing a player can do ...casinos can,t stop this part
It’s crazy how you can see things right in front of you but lack of knowledge doesn’t let you see it. Until someone points it out...
When we speak of cycle it starts with a Unique number and ends with a repeat! Now this repeat becomes the first unique number of the new cycle
So 12344.... 1 started the cycle.... the second 4 at the end is the repeat. Which now the new cycle starts with 4
Cycles are important! Why??
It’s a template for you to create a game.
Random happens within the game but random is happening within a controlled environment. This topic is a bit hard to comprehend and also explain. We change nothing and our tracking doesn’t change the game. Please keep this In mind.
So basically the template youre using is organizing the numbers a certain way. Now when you apply math to see what’s happening; this controlled environment has different things you can look at. But all this is based on this environment NOTHING CHANGES THE GAME. But it shows you there is more to this game and maybe different angles can interpret things different for you to somehow use.
***If you play cycles perfectly with no house edge you will always break even.
Step 1 - Create a template
Step 2 - Limit your session
So now you should sort of see the direction I’m pointing you to a little better....
So once again I repeat... How do we limit our session?
Our template already breaks even and controls variance
How can we set limits within this to better help us win and avoid losing longer sessions?
How can we play in a way where we can take the good out of this situation and avoid the bad?
How are we applying and using DEPENDENCY?
Priyanka said we can’t have a line repeat without a dozen repeating
This is the most basic dependency used and it’s enough to limit your session!
Mel ..you once said to me on my back to basics thread i gave too much information out...i stopped posting on that thread.
i,m going to now say the same to you..
Thanks all and especially MoneyT for the interesting ideas. :smile:
If you once need a simulation, calculation... just say it. (Mathematica, and always better JavaScript)
Quote from: MoneyT101 on Sep 25, 03:00 PM 2019***If you play cycles perfectly with no house edge you will always break even.
Can you prove that?
Quote from: Blueprint on Sep 25, 03:34 PM 2019
Can you prove that?
Falkor already posted many sessions and proved it. But I’ll prove it for you here. Just in case anyone else needs it
Quote from: 6th-sense on Sep 25, 03:13 PM 2019
Mel ..you once said to me on my back to basics thread i gave too much information out...i stopped posting on that thread.
i,m going to now say the same to you..
It’s alright I only shared what’s already in the forum. Maybe I cleared it up for a better understanding without cryptic messages but I shared more revealing info in my other topics 😅
Quote from: Herby on Sep 25, 03:27 PM 2019
Thanks all and especially MoneyT for the interesting ideas. :smile:
If you once need a simulation, calculation... just say it. (Mathematica, and always better JavaScript)
No problem glad I can help
Quote from: MoneyT101 on Sep 25, 03:35 PM 2019Just in case anyone else needs it
Always good to test own ideas against others, so please ...
Quote from: Herby on Sep 25, 03:39 PM 2019
Always good to test own ideas against others, so please ...
Yes very true. But I already tested it on my own. Just never posted it. But I have openly spoke about it. Cycles break even without zero and I believe Pri even mentioned it also.
Me
Priyanka
Falkor
Have openly stated this fact.
Somewhere on my harddisc I have this calculations as well.
Kind of nice distributions which have to equal to zero in the long run.
It's a good controll that the simulation is without errors.
Quote from: Herby on Sep 25, 04:20 PM 2019
Somewhere on my harddisc I have this calculations as well.
Kind of nice distributions which have to equal to zero in the long run.
It's a good controll that the simulation is without errors.
You don’t really need simulation to prove, of course the visual is better tho
But I’ll write something up later here about it
Quote from: MoneyT101 on Sep 25, 03:35 PM 2019
Falkor already posted many sessions and proved it. But I’ll prove it for you here. Just in case anyone else needs it
Sorry, I don't speak Falkor.
Quote from: MoneyT101 on Sep 25, 04:50 PM 2019
You don’t really need simulation to prove, of course the visual is better tho
But I’ll write something up later here about it
Cool man. Looking forward.
Money you say “ now if we apply the mathâ€.. can you explain a little more what that means exactly?
BA
Quote from: Blueprint on Sep 25, 05:25 PM 2019
Cool man. Looking forward.
I will use just cycle 1 cause it’s easy to work out. I will use 1474 spins cause I’m doing it on my phone and I don’t feel like fixing the sheet to add more or less spins 😅
Example 1
1474 spins
538 cycles
Cycle 1 - 98
Cycle 2 - 143
Cycle 3 - 160
Cycle 4 - 83
Cycle 5 - 49
Cycle 6 - 5
Let’s say you only focus on playing cycle 1
You will win 490 units and lose 440 units
98x(6-1)= 490
Profit 50 in this case but if you continue to play it will be break even
Example 2
1474 spins
546 cycles
Cycle 1 - 94
Cycle 2 - 169
Cycle 3 - 144
Cycle 4 - 97
Cycle 5 - 35
Cycle 6 - 7
Again let’s say you only focus on cycle 1
You will win 470 units and lose 452 units
94x(6-1)=470
Profit 18 units which with more plays will break even.
If you continue comparing each of the cycles you will always be hovering around the break even zone.
Now if you add the zero(es) then you will always get the loss
Quote from: Blood Angel on Sep 25, 06:14 PM 2019
Money you say “ now if we apply the mathâ€.. can you explain a little more what that means exactly?
BA
In this case what I mean is to organize your stats. What’s the math behind what you are seeing with the information?
How many spins did you use?
Did you use straights,streets,quads,etc?
How many total cycles?
How many cycles of 1,2,3,etc?
If I use completely new spins will the Information change or be almost the same?
So what math does your gathering of stats tell you now?
What might be important to look at?
Any bias? Anything you notice that happens a lot?
Can you take advantage of anything?
Quote from: MoneyT101 on Sep 25, 07:04 PM 2019
I will use just cycle 1 cause it’s easy to work out. I will use 1474 spins cause I’m doing it on my phone and I don’t feel like fixing the sheet to add more or less spins 😅
Example 1
1474 spins
538 cycles
Cycle 1 - 98
Cycle 2 - 143
Cycle 3 - 160
Cycle 4 - 83
Cycle 5 - 49
Cycle 6 - 5
Let’s say you only focus on playing cycle 1
You will win 490 units and lose 440 units
98x(6-1)= 490
Profit 50 in this case but if you continue to play it will be break even
Example 2
1474 spins
546 cycles
Cycle 1 - 94
Cycle 2 - 169
Cycle 3 - 144
Cycle 4 - 97
Cycle 5 - 35
Cycle 6 - 7
Again let’s say you only focus on cycle 1
You will win 470 units and lose 452 units
94x(6-1)=470
Profit 18 units which with more plays will break even.
If you continue comparing each of the cycles you will always be hovering around the break even zone.
Now if you add the zero(es) then you will always get the loss
Ok, and in your words, how is this helpful?
And here are some more numbers for you:
3622 Cycles:
Length 1 579
Length 2 1032
Length 3 1037
Length 4 654
Length 5 274
Length 6 46
Quote from: Blueprint on Sep 25, 07:33 PM 2019
And here are some more numbers for you:
3622 Cycles:
Length 1 579
Length 2 1032
Length 3 1037
Length 4 654
Length 5 274
Length 6 46
If you play cycle 1 only
579x(6-1)= 2,895
Win 2,895 units and lose 3,043
Profit -148
Now let’s look at something interesting with your example and my two examples.
Turn the cycles into percentages
Example 1
538 cycles
Cycle 1 -18%
Cycle 2 - 27%
Cycle 3 - 30%
Cycle 4 - 15%
Cycle 5 - 9%
Cycle 6 - 1%
Example 2
546 cycles
Cycle 1 - 17%
Cycle 2 - 31%
Cycle 3 - 26%
Cycle 4 -18%
Cycle 5 - 6%
Cycle 6 - 1%
Example 3
3622 cycles
Cycle 1 - 16%
Cycle 2 - 28%
Cycle 3 - 29%
Cycle 4 - 18%
Cycle 5 - 8%
Cycle 6 - 1%
The percentages are very close. No matter how many spins I play the percentages hold.
So I can’t tell you how many reds will come before black.
I can’t tell you how many spins will be dozens 1 or dozens 2 etc
But I can tell you how many cycle 1 I should get in 1000 spins. I can even play what ever is falling behind and get a few wins.
Now should you play like this... NO but you can and it’s much better then playing random
Quote from: Blueprint on Sep 25, 07:30 PM 2019
Ok, and in your words, how is this helpful?
This is helpful because this is your template!
Now based on this template you create your game!Your game should be to win WITHIN your template! Not to use your template to win.
Quote from: Blueprint on Sep 25, 07:33 PM 2019
And here are some more numbers for you:
3622 Cycles:
Length 1 579
Length 2 1032
Length 3 1037
Length 4 654
Length 5 274
Length 6 46
Give me the same as previous vs different stats for this set or any other set with 3k cycles
Quote from: MoneyT101 on Sep 25, 03:00 PM 2019
***If you play cycles perfectly with no house edge you will always break even.
No matter how you play your cycles you will always break even if there is no house edge.
Quote from: Bigbroben on Sep 25, 08:05 PM 2019
No matter how you play your cycles you will always break even if there is no house edge.
That is very true! In my examples I used cycle 1 cause it’s easy to calculate but doesn’t matter which cycles are used.
The end result is break even!
Quote from: MoneyT101 on Sep 25, 08:02 PM 2019Give me the same as previous vs different stats for this set or any other set with 3k cycles
3571 Cycles
1662 Same 47%
1909 Different 53%
Appreciate you MoneyT!
I like how you explaining step by step using simple words.
Having information you don’t boast like previous masters and dont bring headache with confusing.
:thumbsup:
Are you saying you are able to soften negative luck?
Quote from: Blueprint on Sep 25, 08:21 PM 2019
3571 Cycles
1662 Same 47%
1909 Different 53%
Now everything I shared up to this post can be used to create your game and you can win. You don’t need more. It’s just a matter of trial and error and playing around with the info.
These stats right here are for the advance class 😉
So the cycles you used are lines(double streets)
But same means the line that started the cycle repeated and ended the cycle
example 1231, 12341, 123451
Different means a new line repeated and ended the cycle.
Example 1233, 12342, 123454
These stats right here are almost 50/50
You can create a whole new game just out of this info or you can use it and combine to assist you.
But you will be switching your game from playing just 1 line or a couple
But think about it playing 1 line and getting close to 50%. You don’t need it to be perfect just need more then 1/6 accuracy
How can you bring all these things together to create a game that wins more then it loses?
Quote from: Bigbroben on Sep 25, 08:41 PM 2019
Are you saying you are able to soften negative luck?
Yes
When you look at the whole picture roulette is not as random as we think.
If you look at my example 1 and 2 and compare it to blueprint example
We have close to the same percentages. If roulette was really random the percentages should change for each cycle. but cycle 6 will never be higher then cycle 1. Cycle 6 will never be higher then cycle 5
But when we take 100 spins, 1000 spins, 10000 spins, 1,000,000 etc
The percentages will hold. Now because of this information you can create a game because within this info we have more percentages that hold.
Quote from: Priyanka on Mar 15, 02:45 PM 2017
Parallel switching mechanisms should and will fall into the house edge and expectation hole as they will be independent bets. The idea is to run two parallel streams and inducing some kind of dependency between those streams. If they run as two parallel streams without any dependency then it will again succumb to the law of large numbers.
An example of what I mean by dependency is below. Again the key word is example. Taking the example of repeaters, if we run two streams one containing dozens and other containing lines, we can easily come to a conclusion that if repeater has not happened in dozen then it has not happened in lines as well. So that is a dependency as lines are a subset of dozens. Likewise there are other aspects we could use to create dependencies between two parallel streams.
Blueprint, I told you priyanka was a very good teacher. Just at that time we all lacked the knowledge that was being presented to us. Btw this is not the only post where ideas on how to create a game was shared. Pri when into detail and even shared a quad system with 9% edge
Quote from: MoneyT101 on Sep 25, 03:07 PM 2019
How can we set limits within this to better help us win and avoid losing longer sessions?
How can we play in a way where we can take the good out of this situation and avoid the bad?
How are we applying and using DEPENDENCY?
Priyanka said we can’t have a line repeat without a dozen repeating
This is the most basic dependency used and it’s enough to limit your session!
You enjoy this quote...Dependence creates a bias
Step 1 - Create your template
Step 2 - Limit your session
Step 3 - Breakdown your stats
Step 4 - Create your system
Now that you have a good idea on what happens more?!, what happens less?!
What’s dependent on what?! What percentage will win on this bet?! and what percentage will lose on this bet?!
You create a system that can win more then it loses. Controlled by stats and math.
If you notice money hasn’t even came into the equation yet 😂
Many people want to put money on numbers without knowing how to actually win first. Money is the last thing you apply.
I have a question for all of you.
If we sit a a roulette table and they add a second ball. So instead of one ball spinning they have two.
We pick 1 number. But since we have two chances to pick a win.
Is it safe to say our chance of winning has increased?
If this was real do you think you can win more?
Quote from: MoneyT101 on Sep 25, 10:10 PM 2019
I have a question for all of you.
If we sit a a roulette table and they add a second ball. So instead of one ball spinning they have two.
We pick 1 number. But since we have two chances to pick a win.
Is it safe to say our chance of winning has increased?
If this was real do you think you can win more?
In a roulette game, there is always more than 1 ball spinning.😃
To answer your question, the net positive or negative edge has doubled based on the same number of spins the dealer spin.
Quote from: luckyfella on Sep 25, 11:47 PM 2019
In a roulette game, there is always more than 1 ball spinning.😃
To answer your question, the net positive or negative edge has doubled based on the same number of spins the dealer spin.
Single spin
+1, or
-1
2 spins
+1+1=+2, or
+1-1=0, or
-1-1=-2
Quote from: luckyfella on Sep 25, 11:57 PM 2019
Single spin
+1, or
-1
2 spins
+1+1=+2, or
+1-1=0, or
-1-1=-2
Ok I get what you mean but I said 1 number and two results per spin
So -1 if I lose + 35 if I win but two result to get the win because we have more than 1 ball in play at the same time
Single spin
+35 or
-1
2 spins
+35 +35=+70 or
+35-1=+34 or
-1-1=-2
What is the advantage knowing when a cycle starts and end?
So how do you take advantage of it?
Quote from: MoneyT101 on Sep 25, 03:00 PM 2019***If you play cycles perfectly with no house edge you will always break even.
Step 1 - Create a template
Step 2 - Limit your session
Agree.
And I like the way you break it down from a betting point of view aswell
Here's some stats from Priyankas cycles spreadsheet. . .
Just for example playing Double Dozens against the previous defining dozen
5294 total dozens cycles
Cycle length 1 Totals = 1754
So playing 2 dozens against the last Defining dozen we would lose x 2 units 1754 times = Neg -3508
Cycle Length 2 Totals = 2356
Same as Previous = 1185...
Different = 1171
To get to cycle length 2 means we win our first bet avoiding cycle length 1 x 2356 times and lose 2 units 1185 times = -2370
2356 -2370 = -14
But we win on "different" +1171 times so
1171 - 14 = 1157
Cycle length 3 Totals = 1184
Same as Previous = 366
Different = 818
To get to cycle length 3 means we win our first TWO bets avoiding cycle length 1 and cycle length 2 = 1184 X 2 = 2368 and losing the 2 units 366 times = -732
2368 -732 =1636
And winning another 818 units on "different"
1636 + 818 = 2454
So end result is basically break even
-3508 + 1157 + 2454 = 103
Quote from: boyd30 on Sep 26, 02:57 AM 2019
So how do you take advantage of it?
That's the hard part everyone needs to work out themselves. Telling eveyone how to win consistently would be the end of roulette.
Quote from: boyd30 on Sep 26, 02:50 AM 2019
What is the advantage knowing when a cycle starts and end?
The advantage is that cycles provide us with reliable constant statistics. There is barely any variance of cycle lengths, so I guess cycles must be the pillars of a system.
Quote from: MoneyT101 on Sep 25, 10:10 PM 2019
I have a question for all of you.
If we sit a a roulette table and they add a second ball. So instead of one ball spinning they have two.
We pick 1 number. But since we have two chances to pick a win.
Is it safe to say our chance of winning has increased?
If this was real do you think you can win more?
This game has been around for at least 5 years now.
link:s://wizardofodds.com/games/double-ball-roulette/
Quote from: mickavelli on Sep 26, 03:08 AM 2019
Agree.
And I like the way you break it down from a betting point of view aswell
Here's some stats from Priyankas cycles spreadsheet. . .
Just for example playing Double Dozens against the previous defining dozen
5294 total dozens cycles
Cycle length 1 Totals = 1754
So playing 2 dozens against the last Defining dozen we would lose x 2 units 1754 times = Neg -3508
Cycle Length 2 Totals = 2356
Same as Previous = 1185...
Different = 1171
To get to cycle length 2 means we win our first bet avoiding cycle length 1 x 2356 times and lose 2 units 1185 times = -2370
2356 -2370 = -14
But we win on "different" +1171 times so
1171 - 14 = 1157
Cycle length 3 Totals = 1184
Same as Previous = 366
Different = 818
To get to cycle length 3 means we win our first TWO bets avoiding cycle length 1 and cycle length 2 = 1184 X 2 = 2368 and losing the 2 units 366 times = -732
2368 -732 =1636
And winning another 818 units on "different"
1636 + 818 = 2454
So end result is basically break even
-3508 + 1157 + 2454 = 103
Yes betting against cycles will also get you into the break even zone
That’s another reason why cycles are beautiful. In the long run you technically just lose to the house edge
Quote from: ati on Sep 26, 05:51 AM 2019
That's the hard part everyone needs to work out themselves. Telling eveyone how to win consistently would be the end of roulette.
I just told everyone... ppl lazy and they want you to actually go and play for them.
So I doubt even 95% of everyone reading this will even attempt to investigate
Quote from: ati on Sep 26, 05:57 AM 2019
The advantage is that cycles provide us with reliable constant statistics. There is barely any variance of cycle lengths, so I guess cycles must be the pillars of a system.
Thank you, I honestly could not have explained it that simple and short. I have trouble finding the correct words 🤦â€â™,ï¸
Quote from: Blueprint on Sep 26, 06:29 AM 2019
This game has been around for at least 5 years now.
link:s://wizardofodds.com/games/double-ball-roulette/
Clearly not the same hypothetical game I explained. In the game you posted you get paid 1/17 if ball lands on a straight. If both land then you get the full payment or more.
In the game I explained you still get 1/35 when either ball lands on a straight
Quote from: MoneyT101 on Sep 26, 08:44 AM 2019
Clearly not the same hypothetical game I explained. In the game you posted you get paid 1/17 if ball lands on a straight. If both land then you get the full payment or more.
In the game I explained you still get 1/35 when either ball lands on a straight
I didn’t say anything about the odds. No need to get defensive bc you’re unfamiliar with actual casinos.
Quote from: MoneyT101 on Sep 26, 08:39 AM 2019
Thank you, I honestly could not have explained it that simple and short. I have trouble finding the correct words 🤦â€â™,ï¸
Ok, cycles neutralize the game. Nothing new here. Anything else you’d like to point the 5%ers to. I do think it’s must less than that though.
Quote from: Blueprint on Sep 26, 09:02 AM 2019
Ok, cycles neutralize the game. Nothing new here. Anything else you’d like to point the 5%ers to. I do think it’s must less than that though.
If you only understood cycles from everything I shared so far, I recommend you to read things over again
Quote from: MoneyT101 on Sep 26, 09:23 AM 2019
If you only understood cycles from everything I shared so far, I recommend you to read things over again
asking for a friend ;)
Quote from: ati on Sep 26, 05:57 AM 2019
The advantage is that cycles provide us with reliable constant statistics. There is barely any variance of cycle lengths, so I guess cycles must be the pillars of a system.
But isn't cycles of different length?
Quote from: ati on Sep 26, 05:51 AM 2019
That's the hard part everyone needs to work out themselves. Telling eveyone how to win consistently would be the end of roulette.
Maybe so. On the other hand it is strange that throughout the years none of the "grails" has leaked to public. But maybe there is no grails. We are looking for something impossible.
Quote from: boyd30 on Sep 26, 11:13 AM 2019
But isn't cycles of different length?
yes, and can start anywhere.
and the end?
Quote from: Blueprint on Sep 26, 12:51 PM 2019the end?
the end of the cycle(s) you chose - at least you have a max length
Quote from: Herby on Sep 26, 12:57 PM 2019
the end of the cycle(s) you chose - at least you have a max length
:thumbsup:
Quote from: boyd30 on Sep 26, 11:13 AM 2019
But isn't cycles of different length?
What is your question exactly?
Yes cycles have different lengths, each length goes according to how many different numbers they have as a group
Ec - 3 Max length
Dozen - 4 max length
Line - 7 max length
Etc
Quote from: boyd30 on Sep 26, 11:19 AM 2019
Maybe so. On the other hand it is strange that throughout the years none of the "grails" has leaked to public. But maybe there is no grails. We are looking for something impossible.
Step by step there hasnt been any leaks.
You can find Scattered information which people have used to create their own ideas
Quote from: MoneyT101 on Sep 26, 04:07 PM 2019
Step by step there hasnt been any leaks.
You can find Scattered information which people have used to create their own ideas
Yes, created ideas not results.
Quote from: Blueprint on Sep 26, 04:09 PM 2019
Yes, created ideas not results.
Hard to provide result without revealing the method to those that actually have an idea how cycles work
I shared steps which can be followed to create a winning method.
Is the method perfect not yet, needs an adjustment which can only be found by actually failing.
Quote from: MoneyT101 on Sep 26, 04:15 PM 2019
Hard to provide result without revealing the method to those that actually have an idea how cycles work
Therein lies the problem. You stated it’s already been revealed in this thread.
So, back to why I made my comments about Pri - the mark of a true teacher IMO is how are their students doing? It was never Priyankas intent for anyone to find their way.
Quote from: Blueprint on Sep 26, 04:16 PM 2019
Therein lies the problem. You stated it’s already been revealed in this thread.
So, back to why I made my comments about Pri - the mark of a true teacher IMO is how are their students doing? It was never Priyankas intent for anyone to find their way.
The method is revealed!
And it wins enough to profit flatbet
The adjustment will help cut down losses and overplaying losing cycles.
Priyanka was a man pretening to be an Indian girl.
Such persons should be forgotten about.
Quote from: Let Me Win on Sep 26, 04:25 PM 2019
Priyanka was a man pretening to be an Indian girl.
Such persons should be forgotten about.
LOL
Priyanka showed interesting topics and stuff.
On the other side some martingale playing everything knowing millionairs. :xd:
I said it earlier... things have been said and because we lack the knowledge we can’t see it.
That’s why it’s good to go back and look with new eyes. After attempting something when you go back and read again you have a better understanding.
Quote from: MoneyT101 on Sep 26, 08:27 PM 2019
I said it earlier... things have been said and because we lack the knowledge we can’t see it.
That’s why it’s good to go back and look with new eyes. After attempting something when you go back and read again you have a better understanding.
Doesn’t quite work that way but ok.
Redd said make a list of all of the facts.
So let’s make a public list for everyone.
What are the assumptions?
What are the facts?
I’ll start it off....
Assumption: Roulette is random
Assumption: Roulette is not beatable
Assumption: Roulette is not beatable because of the house edge
Assumption: No dependency in roulette
Assumption: no mechanical system can beat the game of roulette
Anyone want to add anymore assumptions?
Quote from: Blueprint on Sep 26, 08:35 PM 2019
Doesn’t quite work that way but ok.
It worked that way for me!!!
I didn’t have the pleasure of exchanging emails with pri or redd or anyone with the knowledge I was seeking. Everyone one of us was at the same level trying to learn from each other. And some had the pleasure of speaking to them directly
Quote from: MoneyT101 on Sep 26, 08:42 PM 2019
It worked that way for me!!!
I didn’t have the pleasure of exchanging emails with pri or redd or anyone with the knowledge I was seeking. Everyone one of us was at the same level trying to learn from each other. And some had the pleasure of speaking to them directly
Pleasure? Lies and deception are far from pleasurable.
Ok, I’m out of this thread. Happy hunting everyone.
There is over 60 ppl in this thread right now.... let’s get some participation going.
Any more assumptions?
Or anyone want to add any facts to the list?
Quote from: Blueprint on Sep 26, 08:56 PM 2019
Pleasure? Lies and deception are far from pleasurable.
Ok, I’m out of this thread. Happy hunting everyone.
Participate! Group effort...
I have only one purpose when I return to forum recently. That is to help YOU.
Read this post. That's what I want to tell members.
link:s://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=26310.msg231334#msg231334
Steve's posts are spot on correct.
He quotes math, like Caleb.
Don't beat the messenger.
Thank them for the free math education.
Be the top 1% math student.
LEARN THE MATH !!!
Read my signature below.
KNOW THY ENEMY, MATH !!!
Or, you can step into the darkside - AP, RC.
Like everyone else, I am no expert in math. Average Joe.
I put aside my ego to learn the math.
I read Joe and Jerome posts mostly math based. Watch relevant math videos. Education in math is very important, build your knowledge foundation.
I admit I am wrong, no problem since I am a student. Make corrections is very important. Else you get stuck with errors, ignorance and fallacy. Pride gets in the way.
Learn to write code to aid your testing work. Without this skill the difficult just got worse.
Voodoo and glitzy ideas and concepts has to make math sense. Always math. Else they are trash.
But what's very important is to get your math FACTS right ALWAYS.
I am not rude or some guy with a bad attitude.
Giving you guys the FACTS in 2 posts.
I hope my message get through.
Good luck. Cheers
Quote from: MoneyT101 on Sep 25, 01:17 PM 2019
Many people want to know how to win but not everyone is willing to sit there and think. Why would this work? Why would this not work? They just want to look at numbers and spreadsheet without understanding what they are looking at. If you really want to find a way to win. You have to use your brain! You have to understand what you are looking at!
People ask me should I try this approach and what if I do this.. “what do you think?â€
Now, why would it matter what I think? Why exactly do YOU think it will work?
If there is no solid reason of why you want to do something or what your goal is? Then how do you know if you found it or not?
Anyone that says you can only win playing “MY WAY†is lying. You can win many different ways.
***As I add more steps I will put them in order of importance. I had no intention of doing this topic and sort of just happened so this isn’t planned. But we will be exploring beating the game of roulette
MoneyT101 post sums it all.👍
And, he has given the framework.
You won't find this on any thread or forum.
Quote from: MoneyT101 on Sep 26, 04:06 PM 2019
What is your question exactly?
Yes cycles have different lengths, each length goes according to how many different numbers they have as a group
Ec - 3 Max length
Dozen - 4 max length
Line - 7 max length
Etc
Thanks for your answer. Interesting you can apply it to all kind of bets.
One more thing for your info.
RouletteSimulator spins are useless trash.
Random.org is equally bad.
Use live wheel data for testing.
Boyd30 do you have any relation with JBoyd333 from Gambler's glen?
Quote from: MoneyT101 on Sep 26, 08:42 PM 2019It worked that way for me!!!
I agree with you on that. It took me literally years to understand some of the posts that I had read at least a hundred times.
Quote from: ati on Sep 27, 03:17 AM 2019I agree
Hi ati,
if you agree you say you found an exploitable strategy based on Pri's ideas ?
Quote from: ati on Sep 27, 03:17 AM 2019
I agree with you on that. It took me literally years to understand some of the posts that I had read at least a hundred times.
Lucky for you. Stupid me read it much more times😆
Quote from: MoneyT101 on Sep 25, 09:53 PM 2019
Step 1 - Create your template
Step 2 - Limit your session
Step 3 - Breakdown your stats
Step 4 - Create your system
Quote from: luckyfella on Sep 27, 12:38 AM 2019
LEARN THE MATH !!!
Read my signature below.
KNOW THY ENEMY, MATH !!!
I agree 100% know the math
In this topic we have some stats in the cycle lenght. 57% of the time the lenght will be 2 or 3.
In the topic ati posted earlier we have some stats about high and low on the defining number of a number cycle. 67% of the time the start was the same as the end.
Could produce an edge?
Quote from: Herby on Sep 27, 03:37 AM 2019
Hi ati,
if you agree you say you found an exploitable strategy based on Pri's ideas ?
I wish. Maybe I have, I just don't know it yet :) I have some good ideas that I don't know how to test yet as the bets would always change, based on what happened in the current and previous cycles.
Quote from: RayManZ on Sep 27, 08:58 AM 2019
67% of the time the start was the same as the end.
Starting number of cycle and ending number of cycle were the same number??
Here a cycle of lines.
28 H 5
33 6
8 2
21 4
15 3
6 1
35 H 6
It starts with a high number and it end with a high number. Does also aply to odd/even red/black. but on a line cycle its not 67% bij 50%.
Quote from: RayManZ on Sep 27, 11:19 AM 2019
Here a cycle of lines.
28 H 5
33 6
8 2
21 4
15 3
6 1
35 H 6
It starts with a high number and it end with a high number. Does also aply to odd/even red/black. but on a line cycle its not 67% bij 50%.
Thanks for the reply RayManZ
rrbb once said that there are unlimited number of dependent situations for groups of numbers. It's very simple to find one, using cycles. The cycle start/end H/L positions was just one example. Here's an other one.
10000 random spins have 5265 dozen cycles
now if I check if the double street that hit at the end of a dozen cycle is the same same as the previous double street that hit at the end of the previous dozen cycle, I get less than 50%, but with 5 to 1 payout the result is +4948 (+5 if same, -1 if different)
And since I love charts, it will look like this ;D
(link:s://i.ibb.co/7zmCkk9/image.png)
Lines are inside dozens, so they are dependent. This of course won't make anyone a winner, because we don't know when to bet for this to happen, and all the losing bets will cancel out the winnings.
Quote from: Kav on Sep 27, 01:47 AM 2019
Boyd30 do you have any relation with JBoyd333 from Gambler's glen?
No, was never a member of that forum.
Quote from: ati on Sep 27, 12:43 PM 2019
rrbb once said that there are unlimited number of dependent situations for groups of numbers. It's very simple to find one, using cycles. The cycle start/end H/L positions was just one example. Here's an other one.
10000 random spins have 5265 dozen cycles
now if I check if the double street that hit at the end of a dozen cycle is the same same as the previous double street that hit at the end of the previous dozen cycle, I get less than 50%, but with 5 to 1 payout the result is +4948 (+5 if same, -1 if different)
And since I love charts, it will look like this ;D
(link:s://i.ibb.co/7zmCkk9/image.png)
Lines are inside dozens, so they are dependent. This of course won't make anyone a winner, because we don't know when to bet for this to happen, and all the losing bets will cancel out the winnings.
Please work in private my friend. :thumbsup:
Also use my idea on limits to go to the next step
Thanks for the warning, I try not post everything I learned and discovered during the thousands of hours invested >:D But sometimes the human nature of wanting to help others kicks in ;)
Quote from: MoneyT101 on Sep 26, 08:59 PM 2019
Participate! Group effort...
Quote from: MoneyT101 on Sep 27, 01:05 PM 2019
Please work in private my friend. :thumbsup:
Isn't this a contradiction?
Quote from: MoneyT101 on Sep 26, 08:39 PM 2019
Redd said make a list of all of the facts.
So let’s make a public list for everyone.
I’ll start it off....
Assumption: Roulette is random
Anyone want to add anymore assumptions?
Redd said to list the facts so you list assumptions? I'm confused.
Quote from: Still on Sep 27, 02:21 PM 2019
Isn't this a contradiction?
Nope
I said participate in assumptions and facts.
Ati posted something I already talked about and asked everyone reading to do. No need for visual charts... just speak numbers
Quote from: Still on Sep 27, 02:24 PM 2019
Redd said to list the facts so you list assumptions? I'm confused.
I’ve listed facts across my post!
And I listed the assumptions first for a reason.
Are you going to bring anything positive to the thread? Or just keep looking for ways to bring negative energy?
Let me know, so I can know if I will waste time responding or not
Quote from: MoneyT101 on Sep 27, 02:34 PM 2019
I said participate in assumptions and facts.
But Redd said just the facts. So I was confused. Did Redd say to list both? Is that what Redd said?
Quote from: Still on Sep 27, 03:33 PM 2019
But Redd said just the facts. So I was confused. Did Redd say to list both? Is that what Redd said?
Ok, then I’m sorry for my response . I’ll clear up what redd said soon. I’m driving. Be back later
But previous spins can certainly help to PREDICT future outcomes by identifying the probability distribution. If the distribution is skewed (biased) then doesn't that help to predict what will happen in the future? And even if the outcomes aren't biased, there is no fallacy in using stats to structure your bet selection.------ Jerome
Lets get our math facts correct.
I wrote on VLS forum in 2014 that the only way for systems bet to work is skewed distribution.
Negative progression betsizing is betting against variance.
Variance of random spins is theoretically infinity.
The ONLY way to bet negative progression successfully is IF you know the exact limit of variance.
How can you know the limit when the limit is unbounded ?
Clear contradiction.
Steve has plans to ban me from this forum.
Why ?
For revealing the FACTS and TRUTH.
Read my posts.
Quote from: luckyfella on Sep 27, 10:51 PM 2019
Steve has plans to ban me from this forum.
Why ?
For posting off-topic?
Quote from: MoneyT101 on Sep 26, 08:39 PM 2019
Redd said make a list of all of the facts.
So let’s make a public list for everyone.
What are the assumptions?
What are the facts?
I’ll start it off....
Assumption: Roulette is random
Assumption: Roulette is not beatable
Assumption: Roulette is not beatable because of the house edge
Assumption: No dependency in roulette
Assumption: no mechanical system can beat the game of roulette
Anyone want to add anymore assumptions?
Assumption - a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof
When I made the post I quoted above, I originally started with the assumptions because it’s easier to know what questions we need answered. So these questions need to be answered by Facts so that we can move forward.
When I ask you for facts in roulette you don’t know what facts I’m asking of you. But now with these assumptions you know what specific facts need to be answered.
Proof of Redd trying to teach in the past...I edited some things out. My remarks in red bold font. You can go back and read the original quoted message
Quote from: reddwarf on Mar 08, 05:34 AM 2011
I. Roulette and Statistics
Unless to what some people on this forum claim: statistics is proven, all phenomena in roulette can be described by statistics, just by assuming that the spins are independent and the numbers have equal probability of falling.
So the streaks, the "law of the third", the formation of patterns you name it: all can be described by statistics and yes, on the long run, when we play roulette the measured statistics more and more converges to the "theoretical" statistics.
According to statistical theory: roulette can not be beaten. Does this imply that the game of roulette is unbeatable? Yes and No!
Redd questions the main assumption around roulette
Quote from: reddwarf on Mar 08, 05:58 AM 2011
if we use a mode of play what I call random play, the law of large numbers will govern our result. So what is random play?
Random play examples:
1. waiting for an event that will make you win
2. trying to predict what comes next
3. using a systems that uses: "what goes up must come down"
in other words: all systems based on gamblers fallacy are actually random play!
Now, lets assume that there is 1,just 1 method that is not random play. Can this beat roulette? All we can say is that it is undecided at best!
statistics does describe the process, but does not equal the process
Quote from: reddwarf on Mar 18, 07:14 AM 2011
Summary: if we are able to avoid random play (=waiting for a winning event to happen), we just might beat roulette.
How can we avoid random play? In my opinion, the only way we can do this is by using FACTS. So what are the facts? that have nothing to do with statistics/probability?
1. Pigeonhole principle (as advocated by Dyksexlic): repeats happen on all numbersets.The pigeonhole principle can be used to proof or disproof some very nice properties, like the next two:
2. related to this: link:://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_der_Waerden%27s_theorem (link:://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_der_Waerden%27s_theorem): when we have two colors, there will be a pattern in maximum 9 spins, involving 3 spins. The distance between these 3 spins of the same color is identical
3. Theorem of friends and strangers: after 6 spins, I must have at least 3 similar colors, parities, halves
4. ...?
Redd brought this information back in 2011. Priyanka then learned with his help and attempted to help the forum.
He stated to use Facts! The non random approach he named has nothing to do with roulette. It’s higher then roulette. It’s universal on random behavior
So now if you can prove with FACTS the assumptions I made about roulette to be wrong. Then with those same facts you can create new ideas and new approach.
Quote from: luckyfella on Sep 27, 10:10 PM 2019
How can you know the limit when the limit is unbounded ?
Clear contradiction.
Thank you another assumption to the list
-Roulette has no limit, infinite combinations
Assumptions List
-Assumption: Roulette is random
-Assumption: Roulette is not beatable
-Assumption: Roulette is not beatable because of the house edge
-Assumption: No dependency in roulette
-Assumption: no mechanical system can beat the game of roulette
-Assumption: Roulette has no limit, Infinite combinations
FACTS List
Alright...
Does anyone have anymore assumptions about roulette they want to add?
Does anyone have any FACTS to disprove some of these assumptions?
Please keep in mind. If you can prove any of the current assumptions wrong. Then that means you can use that proof to create a way to play. (except the house edge one).
Quote from: MoneyT101 on Sep 28, 01:36 AM 2019
Please keep in mind. If you can prove any of the current assumptions wrong. Then that means you can use that proof to create a way to play. (except the house edge one).
Spot on MoneyT101👍
That's the reason why I wrote all those math facts down in all my posts.
(Read my posts, the answer lies in there)
Challenge any one of those to be not always true.
Still calls it off-topic. :xd: :xd: :xd:
Readers think I don't teach other than spam what they think they already know. :twisted:
MoneyT101 gave you the list.
Read it a miilion times. :question:
Quote from: ati on Sep 27, 12:43 PM 2019
rrbb once said that there are unlimited number of dependent situations for groups of numbers. It's very simple to find one, using cycles. The cycle start/end H/L positions was just one example. Here's an other one.
10000 random spins have 5265 dozen cycles
now if I check if the double street that hit at the end of a dozen cycle is the same same as the previous double street that hit at the end of the previous dozen cycle, I get less than 50%, but with 5 to 1 payout the result is +4948 (+5 if same, -1 if different)
And since I love charts, it will look like this ;D
(link:s://i.ibb.co/7zmCkk9/image.png)
Lines are inside dozens, so they are dependent. This of course won't make anyone a winner, because we don't know when to bet for this to happen, and all the losing bets will cancel out the winnings.
How about if we switch to lines when a CL2 opportunity arises on the dozen cycles? But the switch depends on how many times the same line has hit on previous Dozen CL1s?
Quote from: ati on Sep 27, 12:43 PM 2019
rrbb once said that there are unlimited number of dependent situations for groups of numbers. It's very simple to find one, using cycles. The cycle start/end H/L positions was just one example. Here's an other one.
10000 random spins have 5265 dozen cycles
now if I check if the double street that hit at the end of a dozen cycle is the same same as the previous double street that hit at the end of the previous dozen cycle, I get less than 50%, but with 5 to 1 payout the result is +4948 (+5 if same, -1 if different)
And since I love charts, it will look like this ;D
(link:s://i.ibb.co/7zmCkk9/image.png)
Lines are inside dozens, so they are dependent. This of course won't make anyone a winner, because we don't know when to bet for this to happen, and all the losing bets will cancel out the winnings.
Wait. Is this a fact? We're still working on the assumptions list. I'm assuming this doesn't work. If it does work, please switch over to private communications. If it doesn't work, i'm assuming we can switch over to cycle 2 (CL2) after the third line switch (TLS3), followed by the switchover to CL4 simultaneously when CL3 starts and ends? ??
Anybody want to add to my assumptions?
Thank you lucky, I appreciate your posts
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Sep 28, 06:39 AM 2019
How about if we switch to lines when a CL2 opportunity arises on the dozen cycles? But the switch depends on how many times the same line has hit on previous Dozen CL1s?
Why does the same line hitting before matter? If your in a new cycle and it was not the defining line.
Why would that line hit more then any other line?
Quote from: MoneyT101 on Sep 28, 09:32 AM 2019
Why does the same line hitting before matter? If your in a new cycle and it was not the defining line.
Why would that line hit more then any other line?
Well, I've not tested it yet, and it certainly doesn't make sense - but I'm just trying to understand ati's reasoning. There isn't many variables in just a single cycle consisting of only dozens and lines.
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Sep 28, 09:50 AM 2019
Well, I've not tested it yet, and it certainly doesn't make sense - but I'm just trying to understand ati's reasoning. There isn't many variables in just a single cycle consisting of only dozens and lines.
Ati combined the dozen cycle ending with the ‘same’ defining element of the double street
Your question spoke about same defining on CL1.
Same defining takes into consideration that the one that started it also ends.
Has no bias towards cl1 or cl2 etc
Don't get too excited about the chart. What I posted is not some miracle event, there are two lines in each dozens so they are dependent. You cannot hit a dozen without hitting a line.
We know that on average 63% of the time the next defining dozen will be the same as the previous one, and with 2 to 1 pay out, I would probably get a similar chart looking at only the cycle ends. But it will not help us win. You should not try to predict what comes next or wait and play for a winning event.
Quote from: MoneyT101 on Sep 28, 01:36 AM 2019Assumptions List
-Assumption: Roulette is random
-Assumption: Roulette is not beatable
-Assumption: Roulette is not beatable because of the house edge
-Assumption: No dependency in roulette
-Assumption: no mechanical system can beat the game of roulette
-Assumption: Roulette has no limit, Infinite combinations
Interesting, because some of these have also been stated as facts.
Everyone's favorite facts: the spins are independent, spins are random, the odds of next spin never changes
These are I think all provable facts.
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Sep 28, 10:29 AM 2019
See attached for example...
Hi Falkor, I'm not allowed to post in the random thoughts thread for some reason so I'll reply here. Apologies for the off topic.
What you did in that test is I think also qualifies as a waiting game. Even though every spins are played, you are waiting for a winning event. (the defining position to repeat)
Also, the 63% is only true, because of cycle length 1's are included. As soon as you have two different dozens in the cycle, the probability of a repeat happening on the starting position is reduced to 45%, and after three unique dozens it becomes 33%. But I'm sure you know this after many years of testing.
Quote from: ati on Sep 28, 10:29 AM 2019
Interesting, because some of these have also been stated as facts.
Everyone's favorite facts: the spins are independent, spins are random, the odds of next spin never changes
These are I think all provable facts.
Ok we are going to question these ‘Facts’ one by one and see what happens
Quote from: ati on Sep 28, 11:12 AM 2019
Hi Falkor, I'm not allowed to post in the random thoughts thread for some reason so I'll reply here. Apologies for the off topic.
What you did in that test is I think also qualifies as a waiting game. Even though every spins are played, you are waiting for a winning event. (the defining position to repeat)
Also, the 63% is only true, because of cycle length 1's are included. As soon as you have two different dozens in the cycle, the probability of a repeat happening on the starting position is reduced to 45%, and after three unique dozens it becomes 33%. But I'm sure you know this after many years of testing.
No apologies, still on topic
Ok so if waiting cause that number? What happens when you don’t wait?
I know it sounds silly
Read this a few times....
Hi ati, Priyanka mentioned before about playing a game within a game, i.e. first to X repeats, as well as increasing the span of a biased game. She also talked about increasing predictability - but since then the Non-Random game seems to have become severely handicapped in terms of recommended play.
Quote from: MoneyT101 on Sep 28, 01:36 AM 2019
Assumptions List
-Assumption: Roulette is random
-Assumption: Roulette is not beatable
-Assumption: Roulette is not beatable because of the house edge
-Assumption: No dependency in roulette
-Assumption: no mechanical system can beat the game of roulette
-Assumption: Roulette has no limit, Infinite combinations
FACTS List
Let’s tackle this one
Roulette has no limit...infinite combinations
Alright when something has no limit it has no end to it. So it can go to infinity but this game can’t say that. It only has 37/38 numbers. So to even think of the possible combinations when you combine spins is ridiculous.
So let’s take 2 spins and combined them.
Your results can only be 38 numbers first spin and 38 numbers second spin
First spin you can’t get 39, 147, 1820, etc
Roulette has a limit to the amount of numbers it can give you in that spin. Limited to 38 numbers.
Now with combined spins roulette again can only give you numbers based on the amount of number it has to offer. So when it runs out of numbers to give you. YOU HAVE TO GET A NUMBER TO REPEAT.
Something that has no limit can go on forever without repeating!
After 38 spins on spin 39 you can only have a repeat of previous numbers. So once again the game hit a limit!
So can we continue with the assumption that it has no limit? -The limit is 38 possible numbers in a spin!
-The limit is after it runs out of consecutive new numbers it needs to repeat numbers already used.
Fact - Roulette has a limit!Anyone care to debate on this specific assumption before I make it official on the facts list
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Sep 28, 11:30 AM 2019
Hi ati, Priyanka mentioned before about playing a game within a game, i.e. first to X repeats, as well as increasing the span of a biased game. She also talked about increasing predictability - but since then the Non-Random game seems to have become severely handicapped in terms of recommended play.
Yeah I know. But keep in mind that Priyanka tried never to show the direct applications of any concepts, statistics, etc. For example everyone was trying to apply vdw on spins before Pri finally posted a year or two later that it should be used on events. That's a great help, but still the hardest part remain to be solved. To find an event that has two possibilities but chances are not 50/50. I could never find or create one. I mean there are many, like after a dozen you either get a repeat, or one of the other two. 33/66, but the payouts are not 1 to 1.
Quote from: MoneyT101 on Sep 28, 11:27 AM 2019
No apologies, still on topic
Ok so if waiting cause that number? What happens when you don’t wait?
I know it sounds silly
Read this a few times....
Well, if your bet selection has no logic, then you still get random results.
Quote from: ati on Sep 28, 12:43 PM 2019
Well, if your bet selection has no logic, then you still get random results.
No that’s not the answer I’m looking for......read my comment to you again and try something different based on what I said
Specific to the percentages you posted and how exactly you arrived to those numbers
Don’t post your result
Quote from: ati on Sep 28, 12:41 PM 2019
Yeah I know. But keep in mind that Priyanka tried never to show the direct applications of any concepts, statistics, etc. For example everyone was trying to apply vdw on spins before Pri finally posted a year or two later that it should be used on events. That's a great help, but still the hardest part remain to be solved. To find an event that has two possibilities but chances are not 50/50. I could never find or create one. I mean there are many, like after a dozen you either get a repeat, or one of the other two. 33/66, but the payouts are not 1 to 1.
Is the "hardest part" analogous to simultaneous equations in maths?
Quote from: MoneyT101 on Sep 28, 11:27 AM 2019
No apologies, still on topic
Ok so if waiting cause that number? What happens when you don’t wait?
I know it sounds silly
Read this a few times....
If you dont wait you get the opposite of the number you are waiting for?
Quote from: RayManZ on Sep 28, 02:49 PM 2019
If you dont wait you get the opposite of the number you are waiting for?
Ok, so did you know what to bet on?whats the percentage now?
Don’t answer in the forum. Please answer for yourself
No more gameplay questions in this thread please.
Assumptions List
-Assumption: Roulette is random
-Assumption: Roulette is not beatable
-Assumption: Roulette is not beatable because of the house edge
-Assumption: No dependency in roulette
-Assumption: no mechanical system can beat the game of roulette
-Assumption: Roulette has no limit, Infinite combinations
FACTS List
-Fact - Roulette has a limit!
Now back to assumptions and facts....
Anyone have anymore assumptions they want to add to the list?
Any debate on the first fact on the list?
Anyone want to add any new facts or assumptions?
Quote from: Kav on Sep 28, 04:01 PM 2019
I don't know if there are rules about BS on the forum but this thread would fit nicely.
These are already 7 pages of hinting and navel-gazing and BS without anything actionable and nothing specific.
Some guys are so burned by the game that have no money left to play. Though it seems they can't quit, because they are addicted. So they become couch roulette players and philosophers looking for... "the secret". This is all gibberish. And pretentious. And anyone with a grain of common sense knows it.
If you have something to say, spell it out. If you don't, stop this.
Everything you have written is either wrong or obvious.
I'm amazed that you are not being ridiculed already and there are members taking you seriously. Wait, I'm not surprised. These are the players casinos make money from. It's not the house edge that gives casinos the big profits (that's a tiny bit), it's people who are reading this thread and aren't laughing.
Your posts are OFFENSIVE!
To everyone's intelligence.
I agree with you....
You should definitely quit wasting anymore time reading this BS
Quote from: MoneyT101 on Sep 28, 04:09 PM 2019
I agree with you....
You should definitely quit wasting anymore time reading this BS
Mel, don't bother about kav post.
Read his recent post on this forum.
link:s://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=26296.0
After all these years he writes about negative progression betsizing.
Tells you how much he knows.
He doesn't even know that nonsense fails. He moans why nobody interested in his sure fail martingale.
Steve is nice to a fellow forum owner. Else.
Random spins means independent and unbias outcome.
This means future spin is not predictable based on past spins.
If you want to design a system that wins, you have to challenge the math fact of independent and unbias outcome.
Or at least work with more advance maths.
I wrote earlier, this is a math problem.
Jerome who understands the math of roulette wrote in math sense what it means to challenge this math fact.
Read it.
There is no other way.
And, no one who found this solution will ever post it on forums.
Quote from: luckyfella on Sep 28, 04:17 PM 2019
Mel, don't bother about kav post.
Read his recent post on this forum.
link:s://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=26296.0
After all these years he writes about negative progression betsizing.
Tells you how much he knows.
He doesn't even know that nonsense fails. He moans why nobody interested in his sure fail martingale.
Steve is nice to a fellow forum owner. Else.
Yes he is quick to judge but lets take a look at this experts reasoning and waiting for triggers
Quote from: Kav on Sep 11, 08:10 PM 2019
The bet selection is up to you. Originally, Harryj said you should play the losing Even Chance after it lost 3-4 times. And you bet for the next 3 spins. If a color runs for 5, 6 or 7 spins you win, if it runs for more than 7 spins you lose. The reasoning is that there are far more same color spin sequences with a length of 5, 6 or 7 spins, than there are with a length of 8 spins or more.
But you can chose a different trigger if you like.
What makes this really interesting, aside from the very balanced wagering plan, is the fact that you take a break after 3 losses. You see the trigger, you bet and if there is no win after 3 bets, you stop and wait for the next trigger. Though theoretically there is no difference, this approach protects you from long losing sequences.
Ill continue with my BS on this end and he can continue with his Expert BS over there. :lol:
Quote from: reddwarf on Mar 08, 05:58 AM 2011
This basically means that if we use a mode of play what I call random play, the law of large numbers will govern our result. So what is random play?
Random play examples:
1. waiting for an event that will make you win
2. trying to predict what comes next
3. using a systems that uses: "what goes up must come down"
in other words: all systems based on gamblers fallacy are actually random play!
No matter how you slice it up, you can not change roulette probabilities.
There are a million ways to represent them, but they are still the same. And known.
There are 1mil ways to represent 1/2 ,
0,5, 100/200, 30/60, 1220/2440, (5*10+ 100)/300, 10*0,05 etc.
but every way refers to the same thing. Doesn't matter how you look at it, It is still the same thing.
It's like you see a tree. But it is too high to climb it. and you say: "Hey! I have a great idea. If we go far enough the tree will look smaller, so we can climb it."
This is what you are doing. No matter how fancy your representation of roulette math is, it is still the same old thing. Roulette probabilities and house edge are what they are, do a search and every site will tell you what they are. You can't change that.
No matter how you look at it, you can't change it. It is there, it is known. And it is a fact. So you can add to your facts list the probabilities of each roulette bet. Why don't you do that? End of story.
Quote from: Kav on Sep 28, 04:53 PM 2019
No matter how you slice it up, you can not change roulette probabilities.
There are a million ways to represent them, but they are still the same. And known.
There are 1mil ways to represent 1/2 ,
0,5, 100/200, 30/60, 1220/2440, (5*10+ 100)/300, 10*0,05 etc.
but every way refers to the same thing. Doesn't matter how you look at it, It is still the same thing.
It's like you see a tree. But it is too high to climb it. and you say: "Hey! I have a great idea. If we go far enough the tree will look smaller, so we can climb it."
This is what you are doing. No matter how fancy your representation of roulette math is, it is still the same old thing. Roulette probabilities and house edge are what they are, do a search and every site will tell you what they are. You can't change that.
No matter how you look at it, you can't change it. It is there, it is known. And it is a fact. So you can add to your facts list the probabilities of each roulette bet. Why don't you do that? End of story.
I appreciate this reply... it’s not an attack but your stressing your concern.
Now pay attention.. no where did I say I change the odds of the game! If I did I apologize to everyone.
The odds of the game cannot be changed!-What I am sharing are ideas to lead others to play differently.
-Also I’m breaking down misconceptions on roulette
You don’t have to agree with me. I don’t agree with your method. But I’m not coming in your thread talking about it. I’m in my thread minding my business.
Quote from: MoneyT101 on Sep 28, 03:45 PM 2019-Assumption: Roulette is not beatable because of the house edge
This is also an interesting one, because while it's true, no one can beat the no zero, no house edge roulette. So I prefer to say it's not beatable, because of the unpredictable variances.
There is one fact that might also be an assumption.
outcomes are equally likely
This doesn't necessarily mean next spin's outcome. Can be the next 2, 3 or more. Take even chances for example. In 3 spins there are 6 possible outcomes (no zero), RRR, BBB, RBR, RBB, BRB, BRR
4 out of 6 has one repeat. This makes it clear that any time in the next 3 spins we are more likely to see one of the outcomes that has one repeat. RRR and BBB are less likely to happen.
Remember how Priyanka wrote it a couple years ago?
Quote1-9 is quad 1, 10-18 is quad 2, 19-27 is quad 3 and 28-36 is quad 4. Four sets of outcomes that are equally likely (?!) and independent (?!).
It doesnt matter who’s thread is it. A reasonable response is always accepted and encouraged. A hint game must be underlined by red mark.
Hi,
I’d like to ask if the stats mentioned so far hold true on RNG or is it just real wheel?
Cheers
BA
Quote from: Blood Angel on Sep 28, 06:42 PM 2019
Hi,
I’d like to ask if the stats mentioned so far hold true on RNG or is it just real wheel?
Cheers
BA
Either It doesn’t matter as long as the results are random.
What I mean is you can put numbered papers 0-36 in a bag and pull a number out and put it back after each result.
The stats will hold.... it doesn’t matter how you get the numbers just need them to be random.
Quote from: MoneyT101 on Sep 28, 06:54 PM 2019
Either It doesn’t matter as long as the results are random.
What I mean is you can put numbered papers 0-36 in a bag and pull a number out and put it back after each result.
The stats will hold.... it doesn’t matter how you get the numbers just need them to be random.
Thank you.
Quote from: Priyanka on May 10, 09:41 AM 2016
You see those cycles of dozens. Imagine each of those set of unique numbers within a dozen has a statistic quality associated with it. What if those statistic qualities give us an advantage something along the lines of below.
Dozen 1 is no longer 12 numbers but it is 14 numbers. Dozen 2 is no longer 12 numbers but 16 numbers. Dozen 3 is no longer 12 numbers but 6 numbers. But the payouts don't change. All the dozens still give you 2 to 1.
That's the target you need to work on.
Many routes to play, you just need one...This reference pri made is a system in itself. I will not answer questions about game play. Its easy to read and understand the references reading the old post.
I dont put the exact spins cause 200 is to many but i can send the exact spins that gave me this results if anyone wants to test them.
Results with 200 random spins using randbetween(1,36) and betting on dozens
Cycles 117
Same 85
Different 32
Cycle 1 - 52
Cycle 2 - 47
Cycle 3 - 18
Bets placed 126
Bets won 60
Bets at -1 120
Bets at -2 6
Won bets -1 55
Won bets -2 5
Total Profit 48 units flatbet.....29 units flatbet by spin 100
Dillon, this post is for you!
Quote from: MoneyT101 on Sep 28, 09:35 PM 2019
Cycle 1 - 52
Cycle 2 - 47
Cycle 3 - 18
This stat little different from 33%-44%-22%
Quote from: MoneyT101 on Sep 28, 09:35 PM 2019
Bets at -1 120
Bets at -2 6
Won bets -1 55
Won bets -2 5
Sorry Money T i didn't get what means -1 and -2
Quote from: donik7777 on Sep 28, 10:31 PM 2019
This stat little different from 33%-44%-22%
The stats for these 200 spins were
44%
40%
15%
Quote from: donik7777 on Sep 28, 10:34 PM 2019
Sorry Money T i didn't get what means -1 and -2
-1 means I was only betting 1 dozen
-2 means I was betting on two dozens
So I had 120 bets on 1 dozen and 6 bets on 2 dozens for a total of 126 bets placed in 200 spins
I won 55 bets on 1 dozen and 5 bets on 2 dozens for a total of 60 won bets out of 126 placed bets
I’m glad to see a few ppl are understanding the message.
If you already know dozen 1 will win. 2 units to each line or 4 units to each street wouldn’t be so bad. But think... how can i win a little more. Maybe some sort of combination
Just look at what happens. You don’t need to make things up. Just look and decide
Quote from: Priyanka on Nov 04, 12:07 PM 2015
Ati - You are right and perfect. Now the follow up question that one should ask is we can clearly see there are imperfections here. Is there a potential for us to modify the bet sizes across these positions instead of 1 unit bet uniform to create an edge? I will let you ponder on that.
Quote from: MoneyT101 on Sep 29, 01:05 PM 2019
If you already know dozen 1 will win.
You really wanted to express the statement like this? Because then i hardly disagree with that, no statistic or with any limitation that you will construct your game you will be able to know that. Not for the next spin or the next x amount of spins.
Quote from: RiseAgainst on Sep 30, 04:50 AM 2019
You really wanted to express the statement like this? Because then i hardly disagree with that, no statistic or with any limitation that you will construct your game you will be able to know that. Not for the next spin or the next x amount of spins.
I apologize if my message offended you or anyone. But my message went over your head!
Yes you are correct no statistic or anything I can think of will force dozen 1 to be the result. I agree with you 100%. But that wasn’t the point of my message. I worded it like that for a reason.
Quote from: ati on Sep 28, 06:00 PM 2019RRR, BBB, RBR, RBB, BRB, BRR
Just for completeness 2 more figures: RRB BBR
Quote from: ati on Sep 28, 06:00 PM 2019
This is also an interesting one, because while it's true, no one can beat the no zero, no house edge roulette. So I prefer to say it's not beatable, because of the unpredictable variances.
Zero and variance wrecks havoc to all systems, we all know that.
The extra green zero pocket gives the casino the house edge due to the unfair payout.
Think of a game where zero has little impact or zero will not affect the result.
Variance is the bigger killer. Therefore, we invert the table where without variance you lose, with variance you win. The larger the variance the bigger your win.
The statistics you collate is good information. The meaning behind those stats is more important. Most people have no idea what they mean.
This is a math problem. To solve this puzzle you have to think like a mathematician.
Quote from: luckyfella on Sep 30, 07:36 PM 2019Therefore, we invert the table where without variance you lose, with variance you win. The larger the variance the bigger your win.
How on Earth can you do that? What you said is as incorrect as saying "When we've got no idea, we'll make ourselves have even less idea, therefore we'll WIN"
Uncertainty is uncertainty. You can't make certainty from uncertainty.
Quote from: luckyfella on Sep 30, 07:36 PM 2019This is a math problem. To solve this puzzle you have to think like a mathematician.
It's not really a math problem. Math is just an expression of the problem.
Say you wanted 3 apples, but only had 2 apples. This isnt a math problem. You just dont have enough apples.
Saying it's a math problem, then saying "you can beat math with math" is a really bad and incorrect thing to say. But that phrase is thrown around forums like it has substance.
The problem of beating roulette is actually quite simple: increase the accuracy of predictions.Once you understand WHY this is the case, the question is then HOW. And there are various ways we already know works. And if you dont like them, start by looking at new ways.
Quote from: Steve on Sep 30, 10:23 PM 2019
How on Earth can you do that?
I know full well it sounds insane. :xd:
Find the how. :wink:
Quote from: Steve on Sep 30, 10:23 PM 2019
It's not really a math problem. Math is just an expression of the problem.
You wrote this multiple times now.
I repeat, it is a math problem.
Solve it. :question:
Quote from: Steve on Sep 30, 10:23 PM 2019
The problem of beating roulette is actually quite simple: increase the accuracy of predictions.
I have written many times I agree with this. No arguments.
But you insist that your cheating rc device and precog is the only way.
I disagree.
Quote from: luckyfella on Sep 30, 10:38 PM 2019I repeat, it is a math problem.
You have 2 apples but need 3. How is this a math problem? How do you solve it with math?
You should understand the problem first. Then saying "solve it" doesn't actually help.
Quote from: luckyfella on Sep 30, 10:40 PM 2019But you insist that your cheating rc device and precog is the only way.
No, I have not said that. I'll make it clear, again.
RC and AP are MY preferred way.
There are likely other methods not yet thought of. It is stupid to consider ways that are already proven to fail. So try something NEW, whatever it may be. I gave my suggestions for starting points in the "outside the box" area.
Quote from: Steve on Sep 30, 10:44 PM 2019
You have 2 apples but need 3. How is this a math problem? How do you solve it with math?
Do you expect me to show you the solution ?
Too bad you are just not smart. :lol:
Quote from: Steve on Sep 30, 10:44 PM 2019It is stupid to consider ways that are already proven to fail.
Did you read my post that says the entire systems board is all trash ?
And you insist again that I am stupid to follow those rubbish systems.
The math quality on this forum and all forums is not up to the level required to solve this math problem.
To solve this math problem you need to educate yourself is statistics. Arm yourself with knowledge and understanding.
Else you have zero chance to find the solution.
Remember, I am an ordinary layman. I educated myself in math. I am not perfect in my knowledge of math due to self education.
This can be done by anyone who is serious to find the solution. No guarantees though.
Joe, educated in math, can't find the solution. So
Quote from: Steve on Sep 30, 10:44 PM 2019
RC and AP are MY preferred way.
Your RC and AP has little physics content.
The mainstay of your rc is statistics.
I don't dislike rc or ap.
(That's your assumption.)
Why use rc and ap based on statistics when I can go direct to statistics itself ?
Make sense to you ?
You can win the argument of words.
That's what you do on forums.
If you make proper intelligent post I respond. Else no response from me. Enjoy yourself
Quote from: luckyfella on Sep 30, 11:04 PM 2019
Your RC and AP has little physics content.
The mainstay of your rc is statistics.
I don't dislike rc or ap.
(That's your assumption.)
Why use rc and ap based on statistics when I can go direct to statistics itself ?
Make sense to you ?
IF pure statistics by itself provides the solution to this math problem, it means the small physics content of rc and ap is not required.
I leave the readers to comprehend the implication.
Quote from: luckyfella on Sep 30, 11:04 PM 2019Your RC and AP has little physics content.
To develop a RC, first you must understand the physics involved - what actually happens and why. The math and statistical analysis is all based on the physics. So what you've said is nonsense.
Quote from: luckyfella on Sep 30, 11:04 PM 2019Why use rc and ap based on statistics when I can go direct to statistics itself ?
Because;
1. The statistics you're looking at has no relation to cause and effect. It's like saying after RRRRRR, B will probably spin next. The run of R's has no effect on the next spin, unless there is bias (although its not actually an effect - more like a clue, but the difference is legitimate cause and effect). This is one example. But repeaters is equally bad.
2. The statistics you and most other system players explain is incorrect or misunderstood. For example, saying there MUST be repeaters is equally useless as saying eventually there must be some reds and blacks.
Quote from: luckyfella on Sep 30, 11:08 PM 2019You can win the argument of words.
It's not about words. The words are how I'm trying to convey logic and verifiable proof.
Every time I try and discuss basic logic with typical system players, it gets nowhere. Very few people learn, then go back to the same crap like repeaters, progression etc etc.
Quote from: luckyfella on Sep 30, 11:20 PM 2019If pure statistics by itself provides the solution to this math problem, the physics content is not required.
Yes that's correct. It helps to understand what you're trying to mode first. But sure, it can be blindly done with math. It's like doing bias analysis by looking at data, without any observation of the wheel. Sure it can be done, but very inefficiently.
But you're forgetting your statistics and math is INCORRECT. If it was correct, it would validate what I'm saying, and invalidate what you're saying.
Quote from: Steve on Sep 30, 11:23 PM 2019
To develop a RC, first you must understand the physics involved - what actually happens and why. The math and statistical analysis is all based on the physics. So what you've said is nonsense.
Because;
1. The statistics you're looking at has no relation to cause and effect. It's like saying after RRRRRR, B will probably spin next. The run of R's has no effect on the next spin, unless there is bias. This is one example. But repeaters is equally bad.
2. The statistics you and most other system players explain is incorrect or misunderstood. For example, saying there MUST be repeaters is equally useless as saying eventually there must be some reds and blacks.
It's not about words. The words are how I'm trying to convey logic and verifiable proof.
Every time I try and discuss basic logic with typical system players, it gets nowhere. Very few people learn, then go back to the same crap like repeaters, progression etc etc.
Yes that's correct. It helps to understand what you're trying to mode first. But sure, it can be blindly done with math. It's like doing bias analysis by looking at data, without any observation of the wheel.
But you're forgetting your statistics and math is INCORRECT. If it was correct, it would validate what I'm saying, and invalidate what you're saying.
I repeat, you are not smart.
Your statistics knowledge and understanding is shallow. Educate yourself.
No more response on this low level conversation.
Quote from: luckyfella on Sep 30, 11:25 PM 2019You statistics knowledge and understanding is shallow. Educate yourself.
Fascinating. You've done better at roulette than me, right?
You know better than all the educated professionals in the world, who agree with me, and not with you. Right?
Your math, which is clearly wrong, is actually correct?
Come on Lucky. Put it all together. Even when I spell your mistakes out to you very clearly, you're still not getting it. But if it makes you feel better, you know best.
One last comment for clarity.
Steve has no idea what statistics to apply.
His conclusions are based on his assumptions.
He invoke the math experts to validate his arguments.
I made all my recent posts for those serious to design a winning bet.
Especially targetted at those who seek to find the winning bet in math. Read them.
That's my only purpose. I'm out of here.
Quote from: luckyfella on Sep 30, 11:37 PM 2019Steve has no idea what statistics to apply.
Lucky, every opportunity we've had to discuss precise principles and math, you made mistakes. So my assumption is if you can't get basic math right, you probably wont get more complex math right.
Quote from: luckyfella on Sep 30, 11:37 PM 2019He invoke the math experts to validate his arguments.
I'm not a math expert. But I am a roulette expert. The math for roulette is actually very basic. You dont need math experts to validate it. It's basically primary school math. The problem is the gambler's mind is full of fallacies, like streaks, hot numbers, cold numbers etc.
Quote from: luckyfella on Sep 30, 11:41 PM 2019I made all my recent posts for those serious to design a winning bet.
Great. And I explained why what you've said is incorrect. You took it personally.
Lucky thanks for the variance comment. I worded it a little different but I mentioned the same thing a few post back
Quote from: Steve on Sep 30, 11:23 PM 2019
2. The statistics you and most other system players explain is incorrect or misunderstood. For example, saying there MUST be repeaters is equally useless as saying eventually there must be some reds and blacks.
This isn’t true....
Chance of you getting RR is not the same as you getting a repeat on the SAME red number twice.
Also the chance of getting RBR then RBR again
Is not the same as getting 7 20 30 then 7 20 30 again
So the information isn’t useless. You just don’t know how to use it! Which is a very different subject altogether.
You're saying to learn new ways. Well that’s exactly it. A new approach.
Your stuck on 1/37 number per spin. We are talking about 1/37 numbers in more then one spin! So we aren’t even on the same topic!
Forget about winning at roulette for now. This is an extreme example just to get the point across.
If we spin the wheel 37 times and every number comes up. On spin 38, the only option left is to have repeat of any of the previous 37 numbers!
That’s a fact.... Now the application is what you’re having trouble with...
So you can’t bash other people and say they are speaking lies and fallacy cause they found a way to apply a strategy or take advantage of something that sounds impossible.
Quote from: luckyfella on Sep 30, 10:52 PM 2019Joe, educated in math, can't find the solution. So
Well it would be nice if I knew what the problem is to which I can't find the solution, lol.
I will say this though : if your maths results in a positive expectation, then you've either made a mistake or have made an unjustified assumption.
The only assumptions you should be be making are that 1) the payouts are unfair, and 2) each pattern of numbers is equally likely to occur (randomness). Given these, it's impossible to get a positive expectation.
Quote from: Joe on Oct 01, 02:46 AM 2019
Well it would be nice if I knew what the problem is to which I can't find the solution, lol.
I wish I could help you with that. Lol :xd:
Try MoneyT101 or blueprint, they might give you pointers. :thumbsup:
Quote from: MoneyT101 on Oct 01, 02:15 AM 2019Chance of you getting RR is not the same as you getting a repeat on the SAME red number twice.
The chance of hitting say #9 twice is 1 in (37^2) = 1 in 1,369.
The chance of hitting #9 then #2 is the same.
The chance of hitting RBR is exactly the same as BBB, RRR, RRB, BBR etc.
Quote from: MoneyT101 on Oct 01, 02:15 AM 2019Also the chance of getting RBR then RBR again
Is not the same as getting 7 20 30 then 7 20 30 again
R or B has 18/37 chance.
Any number has 1/37 chance.
The odds are different.
Quote from: MoneyT101 on Oct 01, 02:15 AM 2019So the information isn’t useless
It IS useless information.
Quote from: MoneyT101 on Oct 01, 02:15 AM 2019You just don’t know how to use it!
Can you give me even one clear example?
Quote from: MoneyT101 on Oct 01, 02:15 AM 2019You're saying to learn new ways. Well that’s exactly it. A new approach.
But it's not new, at all. You're just not recognizing it's the same old stuff, and not even with new packaging.
Quote from: MoneyT101 on Oct 01, 02:15 AM 2019Your stuck on 1/37 number per spin. We are talking about 1/37 numbers in more then one spin! So we aren’t even on the same topic!
Whether I look at 1 in 37 for one spin, or the odds over millions of spins, the result is the same. The math doesn't change. Really, I'm looking beyond the odds of one spin.
Quote from: MoneyT101 on Oct 01, 02:15 AM 2019If we spin the wheel 37 times and every number comes up. On spin 38, the only option left is to have repeat of any of the previous 37 numbers!
That's just like saying if we look at 37 numbers, we know one of those 37 numbers will spin next. It's a fact!... But so what? It doesn't help, at all.
Quote from: MoneyT101 on Oct 01, 02:15 AM 2019So you can’t bash other people and say they are speaking lies and fallacy cause they found a way to apply a strategy or take advantage of something that sounds impossible.
What many of you arent understanding is it IS classic fallacy. It is no less fallacy than thinking after RRRRR that B is "due". And no less fallacy than thinking 0 is an extra way to win, because it's an extra pocket.
I'm not saying winning with a system is impossible. I believe one day someone will find something better than AP or computers, aka the holy grail. But what I'm pretty sure about is it wont be an approach that uses proven losing approaches.
Almost all losing approaches have the same things in common . . . the use triggers based on data that has no correlation to what will happen in the future with better than random accuracy.
If I'm mistaken, I WANT someone to prove it to me. I WANT someone to show me a better way to win, because then I'll use it.
I'm not against systems. I'm against fallacy and old approaches that dont work. Again if I'm wrong, show me. What you showed above has no relation to what will happen in future spins.
Quote from: Steve on Oct 01, 02:58 AM 2019
Can you give me even one clear example?
If I'm mistaken, I WANT someone to prove it to me. I WANT someone to show me a better way to win, because then I'll use it.
Steve, read Joe's response
Quote from: Joe on Sep 14, 08:18 AM 2019
Of course not, because if it exists it would be tantamount to posting the HG.
I'm not asking for any such thing...
Like I said, he is educated in mathematics. :thumbsup:
Quote from: MoneyT101 on Oct 01, 02:15 AM 2019
That’s a fact.... Now the application is what you’re having trouble with...
This is not a pure math problem.
The roulette spins solution lies in application of the math. So, it might be a applied math problem.
I'm not 100% sure about this applied statistics part but I think I might be correct.
Lucky, I read Joe's response. I didn't see anything amounting to proof of concept, so I'm not sure why you referred to it. Perhaps you're referring to his claim that nobody would post proof because it would be giving the HG away. And maybe that's true. But you seem convinced people here have the HG, and that it relates to principles you're referring to.
So basically you're assuming, without proof of anything. Your only proof is misunderstood principles.
If you have something more, I'd like to have a look. If you have something more and don't want to share it, that's fine too.
Quote from: Steve on Oct 01, 03:28 AM 2019
Perhaps you're referring to his claim that nobody would post proof because it would be giving the HG away. And maybe that's true.
You can ask a million times in a million ways, enjoy yourself (same response)
Quote from: Steve on Oct 01, 03:28 AM 2019
But you seem convinced people here have the HG....
I don't know if people here have the HG.
How would I know that ? :question:
Quote from: Steve on Oct 01, 02:58 AM 2019
Whether I look at 1 in 37 for one spin, or the odds over millions of spins, the result is the same. The math doesn't change. Really, I'm looking beyond the odds of one spin.
That's just like saying if we look at 37 numbers, we know one of those 37 numbers will spin next. It's a fact!... But so what? It doesn't help, at all.
I agree 100% the odds are the same and nothing you do will control what happens to the wheel! So please read this many times in case YOU believe I am saying anything else.
Now that we got that over with. What changes is the distribution in your statistics. So all we are doing is looking at things in a different angle. If each time a repeat comes up it creates different cycles! Each cycle has a distribution based on the amount of numbers for the group that you are using.
Each cycle has its own group category. All this is consistent with your math of looking at random numbers. All the information is the same just a different view. Nothing has changed!! No one is saying anything different. In the purest simplest form...Within cycles there are constants happening which we have proven and anyone that understand cycles can prove. It’s all over this topic where we showed statistics!
The next step and what has everyone confused is that these constants can be exploited. The exploitation has been shared in riddles and cryptic messages all over the forum by different members.
In this topic I’ve shared ideas which helped me better understand things and lucky has shared ways as well.
I don’t believe in triggers!
Odds can’t be changed!So drop the fallacy BS. I’m not saying anything different then you, just looking at a different angle and changed the way I approach the game.
Lucky, your response is a "cop out".
You make a claim, then provide so-called proof of your claim (which is incorrect), then finally say "well if someone made use of my theory, they have the HG, but we just dont know".
You could have just said you made a mistake.
MONEYT101, unfortunately your understanding is too bad for me to bother. Just go win.
Quote from: Steve on Oct 01, 03:45 AM 2019
MONEYT101, unfortunately your understanding is too bad for me to bother. Just go win.
What exactly is bad understanding?
When I said the odds can’t be changed?
When I said I don’t believe in triggers?
I think you mean tracking cycles
Please explain what’s bad understanding...
Quote from: MoneyT101 on Oct 01, 03:44 AM 2019The next step and what has everyone confused is that these constants can be exploited.
Exploited to get an edge? But you agree that the odds can't be changed, so it seems like a contradiction.
Quote from: Joe on Oct 01, 04:11 AM 2019
Exploited to get an edge? But you agree that the odds can't be changed, so it seems like a contradiction.
Very difficult to explain this but let me see if I can use an example.
This is hypothetical just to get my point across.
Let’s say your playing alternating color each spin. So you play R then B each spin that’s your method.
You get this pattern below...
R B RR B RRR B RRRR B RRRRR B
If you notice each time R hits it’s just +1 on R from the previous red cycle then B breaks it. So let’s say this pattern is the constant but since you don’t know you continue playing R then B
After this set your profit is +2 units
But now let’s say you start R then B and after three losses you adjust and play follow the last
You profit +4
If you continue playing you will only get -2 on each switch of pattern you will continue to profit cause the R pattern is increasing.
Now roulette doesn’t work this way it’s just an example to make this point.
The constants are happening, going with the flow of the constant you will continue to go with the odds. But if you have a different approach where you do one thing and then do another and the go back and do same thing.
The reality of your game isn’t following all the rules of the constant so it’s not being governed by it exactly. If I’m playing the same the whole way through then it will fall under the constant rules.
So no it’s not a contradiction. The odds don’t change. I’m not changing anything but my approach.
What almost every player isnt understanding is no matter what cycles you think exist, no matter how clever you think your system is, no matter how elaborate the triggers are, you're just making random bets. That's exactly what you do when you aren't increasing the accuracy of predictions.
And no matter how clever you think your progression is.... if you havent changed the accuracy of predictions, progression bets are just random bets with random bet sizes. Like the martingale player thinks "eventually" they'll win with 10,20,40,80. But it's exactly the same as 4 different players making random bets with different stakes.
Or maybe you think your progression allows you to bet high during winning streams, and bet low during losing periods. No, you're just making random bets with random bet size. You're changing nothing. Wagered amount only varies the amount you risk on the next spin.
We've been here before many times. The basics are all explained at :.roulettephysics.com/roulette-strategy/
No, I'm not saying everything is futile. I'm saying TRY NEW THINGS.
Quote from: MoneyT101 on Oct 01, 05:06 AM 2019So no it’s not a contradiction. The odds don’t change. I’m not changing anything but my approach.
Sure you can change your "approach". But if you arent changing the odds, you're just making random bets. The wheel doesn't know or give a crap about what your system is, or when and why you bet. If your system doesnt change the odds, you're stuck at 1 in 37. And before you accuse me of being obsessed with 1 in 37, understand it's not my obsession. There are just 37 pockets on the wheel. It's not my fault.
Your rules for when cycles start and end are arbitrary. They are meaningless.
The constraints are just basic math. Like the law of a third... If you have 4 uniques, the odds of a repeat next is 4/37. If you have 5 uniques, then next it's 5/37 and so on.
You can say the constraint for maximum reds in a row is X spins. But that's not a constraint at all. It's just basic probability.
In reality there are no constraints. And what is likely to happen depends on the event, and amount of spins being considered.
Quote from: Steve on Oct 01, 05:12 AM 2019
Your rules for when cycles start and end are arbitrary. They are meaningless.
Exactly... it’s just a way to get consistent statistics. Based on those numbers is where you come up with a method. There is nothing bad happening. It’s just you don’t agree.
Admit it!
I’m not saying the odds change! I’m just picking better on my own based on what I see.
So you can believe in precog and see things but I can’t look at constants and make educated decisions 😳
Quote from: MoneyT101 on Sep 28, 09:35 PM 2019
Bets at -1 120
Won bets -1 55
200 spins viewed
120 bets played on a single dozen
55 bets won
45% playing just 1 dozen
It just comes down to repeating same gibberish.
I’m not going against you...
I don’t believe in triggers. I don’t change the odds. They can’t be changed!
I’m not changing anything but what I bet on.
You always say increase the accuracy of your prediction but since you don’t agree with the method it’s fallacy 😂
I’m not here to change your mind! So this is the last response you get from me on this subject.
I’ll agree to disagree.
Quote from: Steve on Oct 01, 05:12 AM 2019
In reality there are no constraints. And what is likely to happen depends on the event, and amount of spins being considered.
Events are limited to 37 numbers. You keep forgetting this.
The word is constant by the way and it means
a situation or state of affairs that does not change
Now your saying there aren’t any constants in the game 🤦â€â™,ï¸
Not worth going back and forth with you.
Quote from: MoneyT101 on Oct 01, 05:34 AM 2019I don’t believe in triggers. I don’t change the odds. They can’t be changed!
There is some confusion between odds and probabilities here I believe. The odds I take to be the payouts, which as you rightly point out, cannot be changed. The probabilities can be though, otherwise you couldn't win, even with a biased wheel. Steve is correct in saying that you must improve the accuracy of predictions, and that means increasing the probability of a win. You're claiming that you can do that by observing past spins. Just past spins, and nothing else. This doesn't square with the assumption that outcomes are random, because if they are, all patterns are equally likely. It's only if patterns are
not all equally likely that you could hope to get an advantage just looking at past spins.
There is a bias in odds.
Quote from: MoneyT101 on Sep 28, 09:35 PM 2019Cycles 117
Same 85
Different 32
Hi Money, thanks for sending the numbers.
Cyclelength I get 117 too, but
Same: 87
Different: 30
Quote from: Blueprint on Oct 01, 07:16 AM 2019There is a bias in odds.
I don't know what this is supposed to mean. If you mean the odds (payouts) aren't fair then you're correct, lol.
Quote from: Joe on Oct 01, 07:11 AM 2019
There is some confusion between odds and probabilities here I believe. The odds I take to be the payouts, which as you rightly point out, cannot be changed. The probabilities can be though, otherwise you couldn't win, even with a biased wheel. Steve is correct in saying that you must improve the accuracy of predictions, and that means increasing the probability of a win. You're claiming that you can do that by observing past spins. Just past spins, and nothing else. This doesn't square with the assumption that outcomes are random, because if they are, all patterns are equally likely. It's only if patterns are not all equally likely that you could hope to get an advantage just looking at past spins.
I don't know if you are active on forum to find a way to win or to regurgitate basic statistics of the roulette game.
How is that going to help you ?
I will tell you this much.
Basic math and statistics that we read on roulette forums is not enough to solve this roulette puzzle.
And your posts is about basic math of the game. With a math major(I assume you have credit hours in stats) you ought to know that.
You have to do much better than that.
You are under-performing.
Make no mistakes, average joe like me learnt from your posts. Thank you.
Quote from: luckyfella on Oct 01, 08:03 AM 2019And your posts is about basic math of the game. With a math major(I assume you have credit hours in stats) you ought to know that.
The problem is that people get distracted by all the possible ways of seeing the game. There is no end to systems, but they all must be subsumed by the basic maths. And It's not really about maths but logic. You don't have to understand fancy statistics theory to realize that if all sequences or patterns are equally likely then looking at past spins won't help to increase predictive accuracy. You haven't answered my post at all; you're just saying I'm not ignorant enough to search for the holy grail, lol.
Earlier in the thread MONEYT101 claimed that roulette has limits because a number has to repeat. In that sense, I guess it does, but it's not a dependency that's useful in any way to someone actually playing roulette, because it applies to a sequence of numbers seen
as a sequence, which is not the way we play roulette. We have to place one bet at time, and there are no limits in the sense that
any number can hit on the next spin. We can see when a cycle comes to an end but this in no way narrows down the possibilities, so we might as well have not bothered tracking the cycle at all.
Quote from: Joe on Oct 01, 08:51 AM 2019
We can see when a cycle comes to an end but this in no way narrows down the possibilities, so we might as well have not bothered tracking the cycle at all.
I am not into cycles, so I'm not able to make meaningful comment.
MoneyT101 and Blueprint are the knowledgeable members on this topic.
Why don't you think it this way.
What do layman like me who learnt the roulette math found out about this math that you educated me that enable me to find some form of predictability of the spins.
Besides, saying I am ignorant, make a mistake or a scammer.
Quote from: donik7777 on Sep 28, 10:31 PM 2019
This stat little different from 33%-44%-22%
Let me give you an example.
This post by donik7777 tells me he knows what he is talking about.
I understand the math of your simple post what you try to convey, donik. :thumbsup:
To everyone, if you fail to understand the 3 percentages that donik posted you don't have a starting point. Educate yourself.
Quote from: luckyfella on Oct 01, 09:12 AM 2019What do layman like me who learnt the roulette math found out about this math that you educated me that enable me to find some form of predictability of the spins.
What is the math which you learned and why do you think it helps with prediction? If I knew that I might be able to offer more constructive comments.
Quote from: luckyfella on Oct 01, 09:27 AM 2019This post by donik7777 tells me he knows what he is talking about.
You just told me you're not into cycles, but donik's post is about cycles, so how do you know that he knows what he's talking about when you said you're not able to make any meaningful comment? ???
Quote from: MoneyT101 on Sep 28, 09:35 PM 2019
Many routes to play, you just need one...This reference pri made is a system in itself. I will not answer questions about game play. Its easy to read and understand the references reading the old post.
I dont put the exact spins cause 200 is to many but i can send the exact spins that gave me this results if anyone wants to test them.
Results with 200 random spins using randbetween(1,36) and betting on dozens
Cycles 117
Same 85
Different 32
Cycle 1 - 52
Cycle 2 - 47
Cycle 3 - 18
Bets placed 126
Bets won 60
Bets at -1 120
Bets at -2 6
Won bets -1 55
Won bets -2 5
Total Profit 48 units flatbet.....29 units flatbet by spin 100
Dillon, this post is for you!
Here MoneyT posted detail numbers.
I can see Herby is working on it. :thumbsup:
Come on guys, MoneyT has generously posted a lot of details on this thread. Do the work to find out how he arrive at those numbers. And what they mean. Understanding of those numbers is very important. Upgrade and improve your understanding.
Understanding will be your main stumbling block.
Quote from: Joe on Oct 01, 09:44 AM 2019
You just told me you're not into cycles, but donik's post is about cycles, so how do you know that he knows what he's talking about when you said you're not able to make any meaningful comment? ???
Are you saying you don't understand donik's post ?
Man, you are worse than donik. :(
I leave it to MoneyT to help you guys. Cheers.
Quote from: luckyfella on Oct 01, 10:02 AM 2019Are you saying you don't understand donik's post ?
No, I'm saying that you told me you're not into cycles when I said that cycles don't make any difference to what comes next. Now you're saying that donik knows what he's talking about - but he's talking about cycles - which you say you don't know anything about!
If you don't understand the contradiction I can't help you.
Quote from: Joe on Oct 01, 11:22 AM 2019
No, I'm saying that you told me you're not into cycles when I said that cycles don't make any difference to what comes next. Now you're saying that donik knows what he's talking about - but he's talking about cycles - which you say you don't know anything about!
If you don't understand the contradiction I can't help you.
I am not stupid. I understand what I wrote.
Your post confirms to me today you are here to show off you know alot, intellectual guy. Enjoy your smart intellectual status on forum. :thumbsup:
There s only one cycle the next spin red / black
Why this long thread on cycles . Trying putting a bet selection that doesn ‘t happen .
Ex.1 loss every 2000 games .marty that is .
Quote from: Joe on Oct 01, 08:51 AM 2019
The problem is that people get distracted by all the possible ways of seeing the game. There is no end to systems, but they all must be subsumed by the basic maths. And It's not really about maths but logic. You don't have to understand fancy statistics theory to realize that if all sequences or patterns are equally likely then looking at past spins won't help to increase predictive accuracy. You haven't answered my post at all; you're just saying I'm not ignorant enough to search for the holy grail, lol.
Earlier in the thread MONEYT101 claimed that roulette has limits because a number has to repeat. In that sense, I guess it does, but it's not a dependency that's useful in any way to someone actually playing roulette, because it applies to a sequence of numbers seen as a sequence, which is not the way we play roulette. We have to place one bet at time, and there are no limits in the sense that any number can hit on the next spin. We can see when a cycle comes to an end but this in no way narrows down the possibilities, so we might as well have not bothered tracking the cycle at all.
Joe, I honestly enjoy reading your post. You are very knowledgeable with the math of the game.
The issue is; somethings in math are hard to explain.
I agree with you roulette is random. But it’s random to an extent because it only has 37 numbers to be random with.
Now listen very carefully.... the ASSUMPTION is every event is equally likely.
The fact is that some events happen more then others. This goes unnoticed when you play and only focus on 1 spin. But when you combine spins it’s easier to notice...
Best way to explain this is using 37 numbers with a repeat on the 38 number.
How many times will we reach all 37 unique numbers if we track 1,000,000 spins. I believe the highest recorded set was 32 uniques with no repeat.
How many times will no repeat come before spin 18? It will happen but how many times will it happen vs not happening?
Someone in this forum posted a chart showing how repeats come from last 18 numbers. It proves what you already know. You can do this test yourself and verify it. I attached the chart below
Take the last repeated number and count how many spins until the next repeat.. Once again I repeat knowing this info is just the beginning. Finding a way to apply it is another thing.
Steve says it’s useless info but many have found a way to apply it.
So I’m playing wrong cause I’m looking at sequences and you're looking a spins? I thought the point was to find a way to win. Shouldn’t matter how you play but to win.
Why is this necessary to convince each other about certain views and beliefs that doesn't hurt anybody? No need to get annoyed if some members don't agree with you. Of course every non believer would like to see the proof and the application, it would be years of work saved for them. :)
I personally enjoy chasing the "impossible". And also playing with numbers, analyzing sets, finding connection and having cryptic discussions with like minded people. I even gained useful excel skills that I can use in my daily work.
But I won't deny that my ultimate aim is to beat the game to be able to supplement my income.
Quote from: Steve on Oct 01, 02:58 AM 2019If I'm mistaken, I WANT someone to prove it to me. I WANT someone to show me a better way to win, because then I'll use it.
I'm curious, if someone posted a proof or an actual application, would you shut down the forum? :) Something that everyone can have (for free), can quickly become worthless.
Quote from: Herby on Oct 01, 07:23 AM 2019
Hi Money, thanks for sending the numbers.
Cyclelength I get 117 too, but
Same: 87
Different: 30
I used pri original cycle sheet to bring the stat. I believe there is a mistake when same happens at the beginning.
I calculated every bet manually tho. So each bet and each win or loss doesn’t affect the result. I just used the sheet to count how many cycles and same/different
Quote from: ati on Oct 01, 01:29 PM 2019
Why is this necessary to convince each other about certain views and beliefs that doesn't hurt anybody? No need to get annoyed if some members don't agree with you. Of course every non believer would like to see the proof and the application, it would be years of work saved for them. :)
If I was saying something outrageous like I beat roulette cause I change the odds. I can understand Steve addressing me.
But to address things cause my point of view is different even tho it still doesn’t disagree with what you’re saying. :o
I’m not trying to change anyone view. They can believe whatever....just quit participating in a topic you have no agreement on.
Like that one guy that came in here and called BS. He still reading the thread...
Why? if you don’t agree with what is being said? ( not saying to leave, just pointing it out, why Stay?)
I guess entertainment value Hahahah
‘The repeaters club are back with their nonsense. 💻🤬
‘Let’s call the squad ☎ï¸
‘Math police assemble 🚓🚨
😂😂😂
link:s://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/75ce6f42-8b60-4735-a3a4-6232fe1b1c09
Quote from: Blueprint on Oct 01, 02:22 PM 2019
link:s://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/75ce6f42-8b60-4735-a3a4-6232fe1b1c09
This is the handshake no secret 🤞
👌🤘👈🖖🤙👋
:twisted:
:thumbsup:
My post was directed to luckyfella. He went on quite a rant to argue about something that he cannot or doesn't want to prove. Writing with an angrier tone and calling everyone stupid won't have a better chance of convincing them.
Quote from: ati on Oct 01, 02:46 PM 2019
My post was directed to luckyfella. He went on quite a rant to argue about something that he cannot or doesn't want to prove. Writing with an angrier tone and calling everyone stupid won't have a better chance of convincing them.
Yea but ati, what you said is also true for steve and anyone else that has their own views. If they don’t agree just go disagree somewhere else. I’m not saying anything different just looking at another angle
You’ve seen people ask me about my post and I correct my language. Sorry I can’t find the correct words to use each and every time. But I admit when I’m wrong.
All the people that disagree just need to understand.....
No one is talking about triggers
Or
Changing the odds
Or
Having control over the wheel
The random wheel will do what ever it wants with 37 numbers each spin. WE have no control over the result.! But based on the results and combine results it can only do so much because this random is finite and not infinite!Now if anyone can tell me where did my view go against your belief?-I didn’t claim each spin isn’t random
-I didn’t claim the odds change
-I didn’t claim to beat house edge
-I didn’t claim each spin isn’t starting with 37 numbers
So what exactly is your issue with my point of view? ( everyone saying I’m speaking fallacy and BS)
who cares? why are you trying to explain yourself? for what purpose?
Quote from: Blueprint on Oct 01, 04:07 PM 2019
who cares? why are you trying to explain yourself? for what purpose?
Perhaps MoneyT is satirizing Priyanka, ati and rrbb by imitating them (highest form of flattery)? I think MoneyT is playing a very dangerous game here - that's how badly he wants the HG! >:D
Quote from: MoneyT101 on Oct 01, 01:23 PM 2019So I’m playing wrong cause I’m looking at sequences and you're looking a spins? I thought the point was to find a way to win. Shouldn’t matter how you play but to win.
My point was that you don't have any choice in the matter; you can only play one spin at a time, and the past spins are gone, so they can't be taken into account when deciding future bets. I'm not sure what your purpose was in starting this thread. You've just given a list of things you're
not claiming; so what
are you claiming? anything? Or is this thread just for shooting the breeze?
If you're trying to teach us something, I have to tell you that you're not doing a very good job of it. Why not just cut to the chase and post your system? Then we can all test it and tell you whether it works or not. The advantage of sharing it is that you might discover something that you didn't know, ie, that you've just been lucky and your system doesn't have an edge at all. In that case you can thank us and carry on with the search. ;D
Or you can carry on with the teaching game, whatever floats your boat. :thumbsup:
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Oct 01, 04:51 PM 2019I think MoneyT is playing a very dangerous game here - that's how badly he wants the HG!
So you think it's all bluff and he's just trying to get ideas from members? lol, that didn't occur to me.
Quote from: Blueprint on Oct 01, 04:07 PM 2019
who cares? why are you trying to explain yourself? for what purpose?
Purpose is just helping those stuck move ahead with some of the things I shared.
Explaining myself to point out that there are different views and they don’t go against the math of the game.
Quote from: Joe on Oct 01, 04:58 PM 2019
So you think it's all bluff and he's just trying to get ideas from members? lol, that didn't occur to me.
Yeah, he's an absolute master at regurgitating useless hints that lack any meaningful information. Let's say ati really does have the HG then when MoneyT contacts him for a general chin wag, ati wouldn't even suspect that he didn't know the HG like MoneyT had been a fellow club member since time immemorial - and by having his personality mirrored so effectively ati might not even care that he accidentally gave away such a tremendous gift to the likes of MoneyT! Remember: it's all about how people feel more than anything else? :twisted:
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Oct 01, 04:51 PM 2019
Perhaps MoneyT is satirizing Priyanka, ati and rrbb by imitating them (highest form of flattery)? I think MoneyT is playing a very dangerous game here - that's how badly he wants the HG! >:D
Ignorance at its finest
If I was asking anyone to share what they know then perfect. It I havent asked anyone for anything and I asked them to work it on their own and not post it.
So I can see some dumb comments from falkor but Joe come on man.
Guys please dont attack MoneyT.
Even he not on red/pri level, at least he trying teach us what he knows. Let we ask him questions instead criticize.
Here another facts.... between repeats we have UNIQUE numbers!
Please MoneyT continue.
Quote from: donik7777 on Oct 01, 06:50 PM 2019
Guys please dont attack MoneyT.
Even he not on red/pri level, at least he trying teach us what he knows. Let we ask him questions instead criticize.
Here another facts.... between repeats we have UNIQUE numbers!
Please MoneyT continue.
Honestly there isn’t more to say. Everyone can decide on their own based on what I said and attempted to show. My last post addressing the issue shows I’m not against the math experts. So everyone else decide if my post in this topic are worth looking at or not and take things step by step.
But I’m done with the topic and defending my view. I’ll go back to being a regular forum member.
I’ll post proof of things as time goes by just to confirm for those actually still learning.
The rest can enjoy the BS and good luck ;)
Quote from: ati on Oct 01, 02:46 PM 2019
My post was directed to luckyfella. He went on quite a rant to argue about something that he cannot or doesn't want to prove. Writing with an angrier tone and calling everyone stupid won't have a better chance of convincing them.
Yes I am annoyed.
No I don't rant.
If you read carefully the naysayers were purposely poking at me.
I had to respond to their nonsense.
Keep the discussion away from the person.
Keep the discussion spot on the topic.
I called everyone stupid for a reason.
It is not to boost my ego.
I could care less what you think of me.
Read my posts carefully. The solution lies in my posts.
For the last time, there is a predictable aspect about roulette spins.
It's bloody obvious.
The mathboyz will confirm that in a second if I chose to reveal it.
Someday, I may post on this forum a very poor performing non-viable system that has a positive edge.
To prove to Steve and naysayers that this natural occuring positive edge in roulette spins do exist.
However, this system will reveal very little of the statitstical math that's required for the complete solution to this roulette puzzle.
Lets see if I am in the mood to do that.
It’s all good, Money, but I do find it odd that you choose to ignore those who helped you along the way. I could care less about me but I know there are others you gathered info from then turned your back on.
If you want to help, then help. You never know whose life you can impact in a positive light.
All the best and I do hope the family is well.
Quote from: Blueprint on Oct 01, 08:19 PM 2019
It’s all good, Money, but I do find it odd that you choose to ignore those who helped you along the way. I could care less about me but I know there are others you gathered info from then turned your back on.
If you want to help, then help. You never know whose life you can impact in a positive light.
All the best and I do hope the family is well.
I shared a system with them. Told them exactly how to play it out. None have even attempted to try it.
What more can I do. Force it down there throat 😤
I have never ignored any of them quit talking about things you don’t know..
Way to take the low road again.
And I do know. It’s a fact and was shared with me days prior. Their observation, not mine.
Tough pill to swallow I guess. I’m sure there’s a life lesson in there for you somewhere. Keep looking out for yourself. Don’t be surprised when no one has your back in the future.
Quote from: MoneyT101 on Oct 01, 02:06 PM 2019‘Let’s call the squad ☎ï¸
‘Math police assemble 🚓🚨
😂😂😂
Flat earthers and
sphere earthers conspiracy has nothing to do with
Math.
Some guys seem to be overwhelmed by their knowledge and dont see thats the end of
their evolution.
Hell is waiting >:D
It's simple. If you're winning a fortune (millions), and have been doing it for years, your system probably works. Can any people claiming to have a "winning method" honestly say this is you? Can you system players touting repeaters and similar junk honestly claim this? No. But you crap on about how useless principles hold the secret to winning, and how real professionals dont know better.
If you aren't actually out there winning a fortune, your approach probably doesn't work.
No, a few wins here and there doesn't mean your system "works". If you really think it does, you need to understand statistical relevance. You need to understand out of 10 people using the same bad system, maybe 1 might win for a year from luck, thinking they're masters.
In any event, if you're winning, go out of do it.
If your system eventually loses, you'll eventually find out and learn a lesson. I've lost count of the amount of players who profess to have the HG, win for a while, lose, then see how uneducated and brainless they were. Even I've been there before. Most experienced players have. So you begin thinking you have it figured out - only to eventually learn you've been deluded, and making random bets.
If you haven't yet learned the basics, you will, if you continue. Then maybe you'll understand what better educated and more experienced players say.
I think your judging something you are not comprehending
If you comprehend what Mel is actually saying Steve show us a clear example
He’s not talking repeaters
He is just giving you a different approach to look at and not understanding that approach and how to use it to your advantage seems frustrating to you so you give the same wide brush approach as usual
Odds are not being disputed
Quote from: luckyfella on Oct 01, 07:46 PM 2019
Someday, I may post on this forum a very poor performing non-viable system that has a positive edge.
To prove to Steve and naysayers that this natural occuring positive edge in roulette spins do exist.
However, this system will reveal very little of the statitstical math that's required for the complete solution to this roulette puzzle.
Lets see if I am in the mood to do that.
I've recommended this approach before. To my knowledge, no one claiming to have an edge has ever revealed a watered down version that could prove the concept. Excuses such as it would reveal the concept are floated. Good on you if you can do this. You could call people stupid all day long without much push back. It should almost be a prerequisite to show at least a .5% edge before styling oneself a teacher.
Quote from: 6th-sense on Oct 02, 01:46 AM 2019He is just giving you a different approach to look at and not understanding that approach and how to use it to your advantage seems frustrating to you so you give the same wide brush approach as usual
You misunderstand. What's frustrating me is how blind people can be.
Quote from: 6th-sense on Oct 02, 01:46 AM 2019Odds are not being disputed
Right. So if the method doesn't change the odds, the bet accuracy is random. Right? So what makes it different to random bets?
I'll give you a new method. Stand on your head while guessing the next number. It's a new method. The odds don't change. Bet accuracy is still random. But it's a new method...... Can you see how stupid that sounds?
And saying my frustration is not understanding how to use it to my advantage is just as boneheaded. You already said the odds don't change. So how can it be used to anyone's advantage?
Some of you have such poor understanding you don't even know when you've contradicted yourself. What's worse is even when it is spelled out to you, you still don't get it, then think maybe others get annoyed because perhaps they don't know the secret, which you don;t even know yourself, although there's no secret to what you've just said - it's just you've got no idea what you're saying.
(link:s://media1.tenor.com/images/1e446d613be789c0252dde0570a59ae2/tenor.gif?itemid=3461149)
Quote from: luckyfella on Oct 01, 07:46 PM 2019To prove to Steve and naysayers that this natural occuring positive edge in roulette spins do exist. However, this system will reveal very little of the statitstical math that's required for the complete solution to this roulette puzzle. Lets see if I am in the mood to do that.
You'll be in the mood, like an elderly wife with a headache. First for anyone to take your claims seriously, you should at least be right about the basics.
Quote from: MoneyT101 on Oct 01, 09:07 PM 2019I shared a system with them. Told them exactly how to play it out. None have even attempted to try it.
Where is this system?
Guys, I'm willing to test any system with an open mind, even though I'm skeptical about all systems, and for good reason.
I use systems myself and am well in the black after several years of playing, but I don't kid myself it's because I've found any holy grail.
I know it's not a holy grail because I know how to do proper statistical tests, and they show that none of my methods gives any statistical advantage. I just wish others would learn how to do the same, then we wouldn't get so many overblown claims on forums from people who are quite frankly clueless.
Quote from: MoneyT101 on Oct 01, 03:14 PM 2019
-I didn’t claim to beat house edge
Wait. But this is the whole point. Your method should give you an edge over the house, despite their initial advantage.
We can look at things differently all day, but at the end of the day if you don't have an edge over their edge, why are you styling yourself a teacher?
Quote from: Still on Oct 02, 02:31 AM 2019
I've recommended this approach before. To my knowledge, no one claiming to have an edge has ever revealed a watered down version that could prove the concept. Excuses such as it would reveal the concept are floated. Good on you if you can do this. You could call people stupid all day long without much push back. It should almost be a prerequisite to show at least a .5% edge before styling oneself a teacher.
Thanks still for your post.
I have shared the actual statistical math with some people and among them are experienced roulette players and competent coders.
I have also shared mechanical system to demonstrate the idea behind the concept design.
This actual mechanical system has also been coded whose result serve to demonstrate the basis of the concept in action.
Experienced members have adapted the math concept into their own systems to generate their systems that give positive edge.
Armed with this knowledge experienced members have now realised the reason behind the failure of all systems. Their knowledge and understanding of the statistical math have grown.
I don't need further validation from this forum.
About watered down version, for it to work it must contain some elements of this statistical math, that's common sense.
For me to figure out how to design a mechanical system that conceal this math is a special project with specific objectives. To a simpleton it may sound easy, but no the task is not easy.
Bottomline, I learnt from them. They learnt from me. All of us has grown in our knowledge and understanding of the math of roulette spins.
We can't all be fools.
We can't all be ignorant.
We can't all be uneducated.
We can't all make mistakes.
There are competent coders, imo the best there is.
We can't all be marketers.
We can't all be scammers.
We can't all be dishonest cheaters and liars.
We are all adults, some in our advance years.
Quote from: Joe on Oct 02, 02:43 AM 2019I'm willing to test any system with an open mind, even though I'm skeptical about all systems, and for good reason.
I use systems myself and am well in the black after several years of playing, but I don't kid myself it's because I've found any holy grail.
If you use systems and you are in the black so its
possible. If you can't smell kind of a system it here you are
not open minded.
Nobody talked about grail.
Why don't you fight the scammers which sell for thousends of whatever currency ?
MoneyT gives at least for me interesting ideas without asking for money.
I understand your pressing for information you yourself are not willing to give. Are you ?
Show us one of your systems which can stay in black for greater than 3 sigma !
You don't.
Some of you have such poor understanding you don't even know when you've contradicted yourself. What's worse is even when it is spelled out to you, you still don't get it, then think maybe others get annoyed because perhaps they don't know the secret, which you don;t even know yourself, although there's no secret to what you've just said - it's just you've got no idea what you're saying.
i know excactly what i,m saying..and have a very good understanding..and excactly what is being said by Mel and luckyfella
Herby, yes it's possible to make a profit using systems, at least in the short term. And 'short term' could be your lifetime depending on how much you play. But that's ultimately down to luck. I know this because I've done the tests and none of my strategies is significant at even the 5% level, let alone 3 stdev. I've admitted that.
Yes, MoneyT and Lucky are talking about grails; that's what they're claiming they have : systems with real positive edges. I suggest you read this thread again if you disagree that's what they're claiming.
Quote from: Herby on Oct 02, 03:27 AM 2019Why don't you fight the scammers which sell for thousends of whatever currency ?
Scammers rely on the ignorance and gullibility of buyers. Ignorance which is perpetuated by forum members whose claims aren't challenged. The best way to stop scammers is to educate people.
Quote from: Joe on Oct 02, 04:11 AM 2019
Scammers rely on the ignorance and gullibility of buyers. Ignorance which is perpetuated by forum members whose claims aren't challenged. The best way to stop scammers is to educate people.
You have to show proof of your credibility as well.
Who appointed you as the official forum scam police ?
If you believe that the spins are random then what is your purpose with your presence in a the system roulette board that you know for sure fails ?
There were certain accusations leveled at you by certain members.
Give us a clear undisputed answer with supporting evidence to refute those accusations.
Quote from: Joe on Oct 02, 04:08 AM 2019
Herby, yes it's possible to make a profit using systems, at least in the short term. And 'short term' could be your lifetime depending on how much you play. But that's ultimately down to luck. I know this because I've done the tests and none of my strategies is significant at even the 5% level, let alone 3 stdev. I've admitted that.
Are you prepared to post your short term winning systems on this forum ?
Anyway, I have posted everything possible in my brief return.
My purpose is fulfilled.
Cheers
Signing out
Quote from: luckyfella on Oct 02, 04:50 AM 2019You have to show proof of your credibility as well.
Do established mathematical facts need 'credibility'? None of my arguments are controversial, but I can't say the same for yours.
QuoteWho appointed you as the official forum scam police ?
I appointed myself, just as you appointed yourself as a 'guru' who, by your own admission, has discovered how to beat a 200 year old negative expectation game by looking at past spins. Who has more credibility? Atlantis has also appointed himself as the scam police too, and I don't see you asking him where his credibility or authority comes from.
QuoteIf you believe that the spins are random then what is your purpose with your presence in a the system roulette board that you know for sure fails ?
I told you. I use systems and this is largely a system forum. I play mostly for fun and entertainment, but I don't make claims that can't be verified or tested.
QuoteThere were certain accusations leveled at you by certain members.
What are these accusations and where can I find them? Please provide links.
QuoteGive us a clear undisputed answer with supporting evidence to refute those accusations.
Please tell me what they are and I'll do my best to refute them.
Ok I've answered your questions, now can you answer one that I asked you earlier and you ignored? You said you learned some maths from my posts which helped you to find the grail. I asked you what maths that was and how did it help you?
Thanks.
Quote from: luckyfella on Oct 02, 05:07 AM 2019Are you prepared to post your short term winning systems on this forum ?
There's no such thing as a short-term winning system. All systems win some of the time, no systems work all the time. A winning system wins long term, by definition.
I use a number of systems and I'm not going to post all of them here, but I will post all of them on my web site blog, eventually. None of them are winning long term, and I can prove it, lol. So far I've not had really bad luck using them, that's all I can say. The money management strategies I use have made up for the lack of edge, but that's no guarantee they will continue to do so. I firmly believe that there is no system (other than some AP systems) which can give you a long term positive edge, and that anyone who claims otherwise is either mistaken or deliberately misleading others.
There is no 'right motive' for posting on roulette forums. Anyone can post whatever they like as long as it's within the rules. If you don't like my posts just ignore them. But it seems you have liked at least some of them because they helped you to find the grail. ;D
BTW, I just notice your signature :
QuoteSteve, Caleb, the mathboys are correct about random spins
So I put your question to me back to you :
"If you believe that the spins are random then what is your purpose with your presence in a the system roulette board that you know for sure fails ?" :)
Quote from: Herby on Oct 01, 09:51 PM 2019
Some guys seem to be overwhelmed by their knowledge and dont see thats the end of their evolution.
Exactly!
Always need to be able to learn. You don’t know everything.
Especially when it comes to something that’s supposedly random.
People get to focused and lost because of the odds; the payout and can’t look at things from a different perspective
Why arent you making a fortune with your theories?
And if you arent changing the odds, what are you changing? Your "approach", right? You're lost.
You dont need to know everything to understand really basic math and concepts, do you?
How limited is your evolution if you fail to understand the very basics?
How many times can you beat someone in the face with irrefutable truth and proof, with them still not getting it, before you can declare them literally stupid?
Maybe just go make your millions, and make fools of everyone who says if you dont change odds, you bets are random and you changed nothing. Please, go do it.
Quote from: Steve on Oct 02, 11:13 AM 2019
Why arent you making a fortune with your theories?
If I told you, you would use that against me and say I don’t have a winning method. I’m upfront and honest so believe what you want and I’ll still answer for you.
When I started getting into roulette I did it cause I needed money. My situation has changed over the years and new responsibilities. Now it’s like I have to go out my way to go play.
I don’t have that same “I want to make money mentality†I’m pretty comfortable with my life as far as income.
So maybe my lack of need for it doesn’t motivate me to go and play for income. Like I once needed.
I play every couple of months
Quote from: MoneyT101 on Oct 02, 10:36 AM 2019People get to focused and lost because of the odds; the payout and can’t look at things from a different perspective
I'm not fixated on the odds and the fact it's a negative expectation game; if I did that I wouldn't be playing roulette at all. But I do play because I like creating and analyzing systems and using them makes roulette a lot more fun. I'm not really interested in AP because that would be 'work', and I make the bulk of my income from sports. Nothing wrong with using systems as long as you don't believe they give you any real advantage.
Quote from: Steve on Oct 02, 11:13 AM 2019
Why arent you making a fortune with your theories?
And if you arent changing the odds, what are you changing? Your "approach", right? You're lost.
You dont need to know everything to understand really basic math and concepts, do you?
How limited is your evolution if you fail to understand the very basics?
How many times can you beat someone in the face with irrefutable truth and proof, with them still not getting it, before you can declare them literally stupid?
Steve the idea wins and it has an edge! I just don’t claim cause I don’t need all the attention with ppl talking sh*t
The topic was to give steps to help see things a little different and break down that old mentality of roulette!
But the truth is.... roulette is beatable with math!
Now don’t go attack me I’m not willing to talk anymore on the subject. I gave all the information needed.
People want to continue with the old thinking. Then continue.... I’m not here for arguments.
Quote from: Steve on Oct 02, 11:13 AM 2019
And if you arent changing the odds, what are you changing? Your "approach", right?
You didnt answer it.
And you arent the first person to be convinced their system "works", but they havent made significant profit with it.
You arent the only one. You'll just need to learn for yourself. I didnt listen either when I was in a similar situation, except i was winning for a year over about 10,000 spins. Not that anyone was telling me I had no idea. Its more I ignored critical basics.
Quote from: Joe on Oct 02, 11:42 AM 2019
I'm not fixated on the odds and the fact it's a negative expectation game; if I did that I wouldn't be playing roulette at all. But I do play because I like creating and analyzing systems and using them makes roulette a lot more fun. I'm not really interested in AP because that would be 'work', and I make the bulk of my income from sports. Nothing wrong with using systems as long as you don't believe they give you any real advantage.
Random and nothing wrong ?!?!?! Wtf
What is there to analyse for you as a math graduate ?
Your worse post by far.
Misleading to the hilt.
Seriously, not taking a shot at you.
Or try to offend you in any way.
Make up your mind.
Either you think something might be there or not.
Ask Steve to shut down the systems board. They are guaranteed losers according to him.
Steve, wtf is the 100% loser systems board for ?
Why all this double talk ?
Not picking an argument.
Just laying out what you and Steve believe. Your actions speak different.
I posted that the entire systems board is loser, and I stand by it.
@ MoneyT101, you said :
QuoteI shared a system with them. Told them exactly how to play it out. None have even attempted to try it.
You haven't shared any system that I can see on this thread, just a lot of vague hints. So where is it?
QuoteSteve the idea wins and it has an edge!
So what is your calculated edge?
Over how many bets?
How exactly are you calculating the edge?
Enquiring minds want to know! :P
Quote from: luckyfella on Oct 02, 11:53 AM 2019What is there to analyse for you as a math graduate ?
Your worse post by far.
Seriously, not taking a shot at you.
Or try to offend you in any way.
Make up your mind.
Either you think something might be there or not.
I told you, my systems have no edge, and I know how to test for real significance (I don't think you do). The reason I've won is because of positive variance and progressions, not an edge. The fact that you don't seem to understand that someone can win for long periods on sheer luck (or at least, not terrible luck) is weakening your claims even more, I'm afraid.
Quote from: Joe on Oct 02, 12:01 PM 2019
I told you, my systems have no edge, and I know how to test for real significance (I don't think you do). The reason I've won is because of positive variance and progressions, not an edge. The fact that you don't seem to understand that someone can win for long periods on sheer luck (or at least, not terrible luck) is weakening your claims even more, I'm afraid.
Your bad post has just gotten a notch worse.
You won because of variance which Caleb calls it
LUCK.
And
PROGRESSION, wtf
Another progression junkie.
Steve, do you read the magic potion
PROGRESSION ?!?!?!
This post comes from a math graduate.
Hey, I am not attacking you.
I don't have to.
Nothing personal.
This
LUCKY math graduate GAMBLER won with
PROGRESSION. :thumbsup:
Quote from: Joe on Oct 02, 12:01 PM 2019
I told you, my systems have no edge
Why would you test your system that you already know have no edge ?
Analyse Wtf ?!?!
Are you serious ?!?!?!
Come on Joe, what happen to you ???
You and Jerome started my self education on the math of roulette.
Most of which I watched Khan academy videos and other related math videos.
What a slug fest.
Money doesn’t have to make millions to prove his system works. He just have to show the math. I think it would be far nicer if people can allow him to speak and Money focussed on explaining the mathematics instead of saying he knows how math can beat roulette. Empty arguments and slug fest. Gimme a break.
Quote from: Tinsoldiers on Oct 02, 12:52 PM 2019
Money doesn’t have to make millions to prove his system works. He just have to show the math.
Finally a sensible post from P.👍
Quote from: Tinsoldiers on Oct 02, 12:52 PM 2019Money doesn’t have to make millions to prove his system works. He just have to show the math
He already said he isnt making anything significant. And his math is he isnt changing the odds, so he wins by changing his approach. He ignored the relevant questions. The arguments are empty only on one side. Maybe you arent paying attention.
You also don’t change the odds only your approach
Which is computers
Quote from: 6th-sense on Oct 02, 01:39 PM 2019
You also don’t change the odds only your approach
Which is computers
So when computers change the odds from 1 in 37 to 1 in 20, im not changing the odds?
That’s an approach to accuracy..as you say odds are same
But that’s the whole point of the argument
Your argument is Really about accuracy
Constant accuracy to be in plus
Don’t change odds payout to suit
Unfortunately you dont understand the difference between odds and payout.
Odds are chance of winning.
Payout is what you're paid for wins
So tell me again Im not changing the odds. And tell me a system that doesnt change odds is not the same as random bets. While you're at it, tell me 1+1=42.
You want the math. You are waiting the big revelation supported by math. You are reasonable, open minded people waiting for the math that will convince you of the validity of Money's method.
Your wait is over. I will give you the math.
No matter if you connect to the cosmic energy or read patterns or deconstruct randomness.
No matter if you have studied the wise words of Dyksexlic, vaddis, turbo, Priyanka or even Uri Geller.
I dare anyone to claim with a straight face that his bets have better odds/payout ratio than described in this attached table.
This is THE ONLY MATH YOU WILL EVER HAVE- deal with it.
And on one hand Money says "no I don't change the odds" and on the next post he says "If you already know dozen 1 will win". So does that dozen still has the same odds or you know better? Please decide. There are people here waiting for your maths... LOL
All this talk is just a waste of time. This gives a new meaning to roulette as a past time.
"Yeah I have roulette as a hobby. No, I don't play. I like to read BS on the forums. It's more economical too."
Quote from: Kav on Oct 02, 02:23 PM 2019
You want the math. You are waiting the big revelation supported by math. You are reasonable, open minded people waiting for the math that will convince you of the validity of Money's method.
Your wait is over. I will give you the math.
No matter if you connect to the cosmic energy or read patterns or deconstruct randomness.
No matter if you have studied the wise words of Dyksexlic, vaddis, turbo, Priyanka or even Uri Geller.
I dare anyone to claim with a straight face that his bets have better odds/payout ratio than described in this attached table.
This is THE ONLY MATH YOU WILL EVER HAVE- deal with it.
And on one hand Money says "no I don't change the odds" and on the next post he says "If you already know dozen 1 will win". So does that dozen still has the same odds or you know better? Please decide. There are people here waiting for your maths... LOL
All this talk is just a waste of time. This gives a new meaning to roulette as a past time.
"Yeah I have roulette as a hobby. No, I don't play. I like to read BS on the forums. It's more economical too."
Shut down your systems forum, do the right thing kav. They are all bs losers.
Your
PROGRESSION MM is some voodoo magic sauce kav ?
We want to learn your magic
PROGRESSION , pls teach us guru kav
I enjoy very much discussions about roulette strategies and progressions and triggers and money management and all that stuff.
These are very specific and clear. With pros and cons.
No voodoo, no cosmic energy and not reading randomness.
Specific stuff. You can understand. And like or not like.
If you think for example that ignatus' systems and this topic are the same thing, I can't convince you otherwise.
Quote from: Kav on Oct 02, 02:39 PM 2019
I enjoy very much discussions about roulette strategies and progressions and triggers and money management and all that stuff.
These are very specific and clear. With pros and cons.
No voodoo, no cosmic energy and not reading randomness.
Specific stuff. You can understand. And like or not like.
If you think for example that ignatus' systems and this topic are the same thing, I can't convince you otherwise.
Yes, mix
TRIGGERS with magic
PROGRESSION to win, thank you for teaching us guru kav🙏
Wait, I think I've figured it out. You are one of those guys who are waiting for Money's math to convince you there is an advantage to his BS, right?
Quote from: Kav on Oct 02, 02:52 PM 2019
Wait, I think I refigured it out. You are of those guys who are waiting for Money's math to convince you there is an advantage to his BS, right?
I am waiting for your
TRIGGER to call my ferrari salesman for a test drive. All I need is your magic
PROGRESSION right ?
So now you don't wait for his math, because you said so at the top of the very same forum page. But people forget, I can understand that.
Quote from: Kav on Oct 02, 02:39 PM 2019
I enjoy very much discussions about roulette strategies and progressions and triggers and money management and all that stuff.
These are very specific and clear. With pros and cons.
No voodoo, no cosmic energy and not reading randomness.
Specific stuff. You can understand. And like or not like.
If you think for example that ignatus' systems and this topic are the same thing, I can't convince you otherwise.
I remember why Roulette 30 is a drag. You are one of the mathNazis that I'm targeting with an army of people that directly contradict your beliefs. Thanks for removing all links to Reading Randomness from your forum. I get owner's privilege. The people at this forum are showing me that mathNazis days are numbered. The Reading Randomness thread is all specific stuff. So are the demonstrations of win to loss ratio statistics. The tide is turning against you. I'm done, you are cut off. I don't want to hear your opinion. Go away. " I can't convince you otherwise."
Quote from: luckyfella on Oct 02, 12:06 PM 2019You won because of variance which Caleb calls it LUCK.
And PROGRESSION, wtf
lucky, a progression doesn't necessarily mean a martingale. My progressions only kick in when I really need them, and no marties or fibos either; they're very mild and only rise to a small fraction of the house limit.
Like I said, my results are not 'significant' in the sense of being outside normal random fluctuations, but still I'm well ahead. You don't seem to realize how easy it is for a player to think that he has a great system (an advantage) when in reality it's just a positive fluctuation. These fluctuations can go on for many thousands of bets, especially if you're betting few numbers.
For illustration, take a simple EC marty system with 7 steps. Ignoring zero, your chance of a win is 127/128 and the chance of a progression bust is 1/128. Suppose you have placed 2,500 bets. Your expectation is
2,500 * 127/128 ~ 2,480 wins and 20 busts. That's a net of 2,480 - 20 * 127 = -60 units
This assumes no variance one way or the other. But suppose you get a positive variance of 2 standard deviations, which is not at all uncommon. Such a variance doesn't register as 'significant' (it should be at least 2.56 standard deviations to be significant at the 5% level). But still, it results in only 11 progression busts as opposed to 20. Your results are
2,489 - 11 * 127 = +1092 units
Not bad eh? So you see how easy it is to be fooled if you're ignorant of basic inferential statistics. That example wasn't particularly impressive; if you were betting only 2 or 3 numbers the profits could be much larger, and still no edge anywhere to be found. ;)
I hope you understand the point I'm trying to make.
Quote from: Joe on Oct 02, 03:13 PM 2019
lucky, a progression doesn't necessarily mean a martingale. My progressions only kick in when I really need them, and no marties or fibos either; they're very mild and only rise to a small fraction of the house limit.
Like I said, my results are not 'significant' in the sense of being outside normal random fluctuations, but still I'm well ahead. You don't seem to realize how easy it is for a player to think that he has a great system (an advantage) when in reality it's just a positive fluctuation. These fluctuations can go on for many thousands of bets, especially if you're betting few numbers.
For illustration, take a simple EC marty system with 7 steps. Ignoring zero, your chance of a win is 127/128 and the chance of a progression bust is 1/128. Suppose you have placed 2,500 bets. Your expectation is
2,500 * 127/128 ~ 2,480 wins and 20 busts. That's a net of 2,480 - 20 * 127 = -60 units
This assumes no variance one way or the other. But suppose you get a positive variance of 2 standard deviations, which is not at all uncommon. Such a variance doesn't register as 'significant' (it should be at least 2.56 standard deviations to be significant at the 5% level). But still, it results in only 11 progression busts as opposed to 20. Your results are
2,489 - 11 * 127 = +1092 units
Not bad eh? So you see how easy it is to be fooled if you're ignorant of basic inferential statistics. That example wasn't particularly impressive; if you were betting only 2 or 3 numbers the profits could be much larger, and still no edge anywhere to be found. ;)
I hope you understand the point I'm trying to make.
Joe, rest assured I know the math.
Good post about progression math. :thumbsup:
Since you touch on progression, my bet is
FLATBET. No progression required.
Try flatbet, see if your system still wins.
Quote from: Joe on Oct 02, 03:13 PM 20192,500 * 127/128 ~ 2,480 wins and 20 busts. That's a net of 2,480 - 20 * 127 = -60 units
The expectation should be break even assuming no zero; the error is due to rounding.
Another thing to keep in mind is that nobody posts a system which they know loses, but often members will post something which looks promising. How many times have you seen those systems crash and burn after subsequent testing? Every time, that's how many times.
Now what happens if someone thinks a system is so great (maybe it's a 3 standard deviation job) that they don't want to post it; they would prefer to just drop hints and bask in the warm glow of attention. As a consequence, that system never gets tested to destruction.
Quote from: Steve on Oct 02, 11:51 AM 2019
You didnt answer it.
And you arent the first person to be convinced their system "works", but they havent made significant profit with it.
You arent the only one. You'll just need to learn for yourself. I didnt listen either when I was in a similar situation, except i was winning for a year over about 10,000 spins. Not that anyone was telling me I had no idea. Its more I ignored critical basics.
I’m not the changing the odds cause that can’t be changed.
Am I picking at better odds then what the game offers.....YES!
If I find a way to post math behind it without revealing. I’ll post it.
Kav, I still don’t understand why you are commenting on a topic that is BS. Why you still in here :o
Quote from: luckyfella on Oct 02, 03:20 PM 2019
Since you touch on progression, my bet is FLATBET. No progression required.
No progression
required?
I hate to ask this, but do you claim that you win by flat betting?
So not only are you waiting for Maney to show how he changed the math of roulette, you have changed the math too.
(link:s://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=26317.0;attach=41922;image)
Did you change the math by connecting to the cosmic energy or by deconstructing randomness?
No, I know how you do it: you read the patterns, right? With just a bit of quantum physics thrown in for good measure.
Or maybe it;s the law of attraction, psi kind of stuff.
Quote from: MoneyT101 on Oct 02, 03:46 PM 2019
Kav, I still don’t understand why you are commenting on a topic that is BS. Why you still in here :o
I comment on this topic because it is over the edge on vagueness, contradiction and pretention.
I would never go and criticise on a simple topic about a system, where the system is clearly explained, because:
1) the guy is sharing something
2) makes it available for anyone to test
3) doesn't make crazy claims
4) it is something specific
Your topic fails on all these 4 criteria.
I would not post if none cared about what you write. But this "suspicious" interest about someone who says:
QuoteI’m not the changing the odds cause that can’t be changed.
Am I picking at better odds then what the game offers.....YES!
and doesn't get called out is teasing me.
Quote from: Kav on Oct 02, 04:02 PM 2019
I comment on this topic because it is over the edge on vagueness, contradiction and pretention.
I would never go to a simple topic about a system, where the system is clearly explained and tell them it doesn't work, because:
1) the guy is sharing something
2) makes it available for anyone to test
3) doesn't make crazy claims
4) it is something specific
Your topic fails on all these 4 criteria.
I would not post if none cared about what you write. But this "suspicious" interest about someone who says:and doesn't get called out is teasing me.
Quote from: MoneyT101 on Sep 25, 01:17 PM 2019
***As I add more steps I will put them in order of importance. I had no intention of doing this topic and sort of just happened so this isn’t planned. But we will be exploring beating the game of roulette
Let’s go back to my first post. Because no where did I say i am sharing a system!
Now joe you made a comment about me saying I shared a system and they didn’t attempt it. That was to some people in private and those people gave me information when I first started investigating cycles.
I did post direct ideas to how to play the system from which I posted results using dozen! You can call it cryptic or whatever but it’s there.
But the original topic goal was to speak about exploring ideas on having a different approach to beat the game.
So all those looking for me to give you a step by step on what to bet and what not to bet. Keep waiting!
Kav, also I’m not contradicting anything. Don’t take one post where I was speaking of one thing and use it for another! Grow the F*ck up...
I don’t need to prove anything to anyone. Tell me one good thing that comes out of me proving it?!
I’ll do things my way... anyone tired of the topic can ignore and not participate!
Quote from: MoneyT101 on Oct 02, 03:46 PM 2019
I’m not the changing the odds cause that can’t be changed.
Am I picking at better odds then what the game offers.....YES!
See? I don't have to take two different posts of yours to point out a contradiction. You contradict yourself perfectly in the same post!
Quote from: Kav on Oct 02, 04:32 PM 2019
See? I don't have to take two different posts of yours to point out a contradiction. You contradict yourself perfectly in the same post!
If you call that contradicting... You’ve proven that I am 👏
Hope that made your day :thumbsup:
With forums you never know you're conversing with a kid, a poser, a troll or whatever.... until they say boneheaded things and show how thick they are. Then you understand you wasted your time. I hope at least someone learned something here. Ive got time to help people who want it. But not to help people who are off the rails.
Quote from: Joe on Oct 02, 03:43 PM 2019
The expectation should be break even assuming no zero; the error is due to rounding.
Another thing to keep in mind is that nobody posts a system which they know loses, but often members will post something which looks promising. How many times have you seen those systems crash and burn after subsequent testing? Every time, that's how many times.
Now what happens if someone thinks a system is so great (maybe it's a 3 standard deviation job) that they don't want to post it; they would prefer to just drop hints and bask in the warm glow of attention. As a consequence, that system never gets tested to destruction.
This is a another good post. :thumbsup:
I said many times that roulette is a game that's based on math. Serious members should educate themselves. It's ok to be ignorant and make mistakes. But you have to make the effort in education to end the ignorance. Occasional mistakes is acceptable since we layman are self educated.
Joe, you should keep your posts related to the math of roulette.
And you are a good teacher in forum medium. :thumbsup:
Forget about your loser systems bet.
That's waste of time luck stuff.
For your info, my flatbet register a 3.185 stddev.
And, like Joe, if you do use negative progression betsizing,
My question is, How do you know the depth of the negative variance ? x stddev, what is x ?
Remember, theoretically random spins has unbounded stddev.
Quote from: Joe on Oct 02, 03:43 PM 2019
The expectation should be break even assuming no zero; the error is due to rounding.
Another thing to keep in mind is that nobody posts a system which they know loses, but often members will post something which looks promising. How many times have you seen those systems crash and burn after subsequent testing? Every time, that's how many times.
Now what happens if someone thinks a system is so great (maybe it's a 3 standard deviation job) that they don't want to post it; they would prefer to just drop hints and bask in the warm glow of attention. As a consequence, that system never gets tested to destruction.
Joe, the solution has to be based on a skewed distribution. It is the same requirement for AP, RC or systems or precog or whatever voodoo. Wrote that in 2014 VLS. My claim is that this exist naturally in random spins.
Ridiculous ? Nonsense ? Trash ? Delusional ? Stupid ? Uneducated ?
I
happily accept whatever you throw at me. I won't ever reveal it.
I have given you where the solution lies mathwise, Joe.
Joe, I enjoy our math-based conversation. 3.185 stddev tested to destruction is not a ridiculous number.
Steve claims he has a 150% edge over some wheels. He killed the casino ! Just by watching videos in his pyjamas in his own words.
Might as well take over the ownership of the casino instead of playing this roulette game.
Joe, this is the kind of shit you should point out. Harping on ridiculous sensational numbers. Clear marketing intent. Do your job as self-appointed scammer policeman, Joe.
Steve, Nothing against you and your marketing. Nothing personal. Just that I am not stupid. And voicing my opinion. Who knows you might be doing what you say. I might be dead wrong about your rc. But I chose to err on the side of sensible logic.
Ignorant guy posing as math/roulette expert ask me what new math have I invented ? What math have I change ? Posting the payout table.
Joe, do you expect me to reply to this level of gibberish ?
I'm out of here. Right thing to do. :thumbsup:
Quote from: luckyfella on Oct 02, 09:37 PM 2019this is the kind of shit you should point out. Harping on ridiculous sensational numbers
Have you actually seen the videos in which I demonstrate such edges? How many mistakes can you make?
Quote from: luckyfella on Oct 02, 09:37 PM 2019Just that I am not stupid.
Are you sure?
Quote from: Steve on Oct 02, 10:52 PM 2019
Have you actually seen the videos in which I demonstrate such edges? How many mistakes can you make?
Are you sure?
Yes, you are correct. I am a big idiot to make this gross stupid uneducated mistake not to watch your videos.
Thank you for enlightening idiot me. Yes sir, I will watch it right now.
Where's the video link steve ?
Can you be so kind to post it here pls. TQ
Hey kav since you are around.
Forget your TRIGGERS and PROGRESSION.
Give you a top notch money making tip.
No cryptic clues or hints.
Watch steve's 150% edge video. :thumbsup:
This is my OPINION !!!! >> it seems that jealousy spawned from "knowing less" has taken over the boards TODAY. Thats not a rip on you RG, its an observation. Then, the newer members (myself) more or less listened, took down notes (I did) and asked a few questions. Its NOT like that today.
How that changed? I have no idea. The newer guys think they know more or the same. THEY DON'T and this bothers them. They have NO interest, waiting/learning. -------Mr J unquote
Quote from: luckyfella on Oct 02, 11:02 PM 2019Yes, you are correct. I am a big idiot to make this gross stupid uneducated mistake not to watch your videos.
It's ok. Just don't let it happen again. Remember it's always best to investigate something before flapping your mouth.
Here's a 120% edge in a public group demo:
It's a very old video and poor quality (still with 2019 model huxley wheel), but I published it because it's a group demo that I did as part of a public challenge. Basically a few idiots (mostly other computer developers) said the computer had "random accuracy", so I said I'll do a public demo anyone can attend. It was part of a public challenge to refute bullshit. The edge regarding wins/losses is about 120%, but the actual edge if 1 number per peak was bet was probably closer to 200%. This is because the fewer numbers you bet, the higher the edge, but lower "profit per hour".
I've done many public demos since then. And as camcorder technology improved, so did the quality of the recordings. Keep in mind I've been doing this for a long time.
A reasonably recent recording is below. This was a live webcam demo, which is why I showed the data/time on the paper at the start.
Results are below:
(link:s://:.hybridroulettecomputer.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/hybrid-21-7-2017.jpg)
I've done roughly 60 in-person demos in the past 10 or so years, and about 20 live webcam demos.
The edge mostly depends on the diamond hit configuration, which is different every time the wheel is moved. No, this doesnt mean dominant diamonds. You dont need dominant diamonds. The edge comes from the combination of variables and physical characteristics. It can be the same every time for modern wheels in good condition, even with precise leveling equipment. So the edge typically varies between 10-150% which is a huge range, but you just get what you get. If the wheel isnt moved, then the edge doesn't change.
And MrJ's knowledge was poor, and in the end all he did was tell new members how inexperienced they were compared to him. But his own knowledge was not much better than yours.
Sorry I cant waste much more time on you. You aren't getting even the basic concepts. But again if you have a super-duper system, just go use it and make idiots of us.
Quote from: Steve on Oct 03, 12:26 AM 2019
Sorry I cant waste much more time on you. You aren't getting even the basic concepts. But again if you have a super-duper system, just go use it and make idiots of us.
Just ignore my harmless nonsensical posts. You shouldn't waste your time on systems board.
Quote from: Steve on Oct 03, 12:26 AM 2019
But again if you have a super-duper system, just go use it and make idiots of us.
Why make idiots of anyone ? :question:
The only use is to befriend the b&m casinos.
I love the pitboss. :thumbsup:
Seriously, I do envy you playing with such a huge edge. Certainly out of my scope. :(
It’s a bit odd to show the edge posting videos with not considerable amount of spins. Who cares though.
I am really choked up.
All the holy men are gathered here to prevent us from buying what MoneyT don’t sells. :xd:
Quote from: Kav on Oct 02, 04:32 PM 2019I’m not the changing the odds cause that can’t be changed.
Am I picking at better odds then what the game offers.....YES!
See? I don't have to take two different posts of yours to point out a contradiction. You contradict yourself perfectly in the same post!
To be fair to MoneyT, I think he intended odds to mean 'payouts' in the first sentence and 'probability of a win' in the second second, which obviously doesn't result in a contradiction. In the table you posted, the 2nd column is the probability
implied by the payouts, which obviously isn't set in stone, unlike the payouts themselves. Precisely because the payouts
are set in stone, the only way to get an edge is to improve predictive accuracy. Contrast this with sports betting where the payouts (what they call 'odds'!) can and does change. The challenge in sports betting isn't to improve accuracy but figure out what the probability of a win is and then shop around to get the best payouts relative to it.
It's all quite confusing for a newbie and would be much less so if they stuck to the terms 'payout' and 'probability' instead of 'odds', which sometimes means payouts and sometimes probability.
Quote from: Herby on Oct 03, 03:57 AM 2019
I am really choked up.
All the holy men are gathered here to prevent us from buying what MoneyT don’t sells. :xd:
Science is also a religion ala globe earth deception, so keep promoting the globe, HG and Santa Claus to your children for as long as possible so they can continue to experience that sense of wonder well into their teens! It's very important, yo know? :thumbsup:
Quote from: Joe on Oct 03, 04:09 AM 2019
To be fair to MoneyT, I think he intended odds to mean 'payouts' in the first sentence and 'probability of a win' in the second second, which obviously doesn't result in a contradiction. In the table you posted, the 2nd column is the probability implied by the payouts, which obviously isn't set in stone, unlike the payouts themselves. Precisely because the payouts are set in stone, the only way to get an edge is to improve predictive accuracy. Contrast this with sports betting where the payouts (what they call 'odds'!) can and does change. The challenge in sports betting isn't to improve accuracy but figure out what the probability of a win is and then shop around to get the best payouts relative to it.
It's all quite confusing for a newbie and would be much less so if they stuck to the terms 'payout' and 'probability' instead of 'odds', which sometimes means payouts and sometimes probability.
Another good post for newbies to learn.
Payout, odds and probability are 3 words that are used interchangeably.
The words aside, for the system bet to win the bet must have increased accuracy of prediction.
Take for example ec red and black. In the next 10spins there are 6reds and 4blacks.
The systems bet must indicate to bet red to win. Now if we study this carefully there are more reds than blacks. This is due to variance. Therefore, it becomes a requirement that the systems bet must predict on which side the positive variance hit.
If there are 5red and 5blacks you breakeven and pay the cost of the additional zero pocket which gives you a net negative position.
So long as the roulette spins maintain an uneven count you have a chance to win. If it returns exactly balanced you lose to he.
The non-negotiable requirement for every systems method is it has to predict the outcome better than the odds.
Therefore, to say to win in roulette betting you have to improve the accuracy of prediction is redundant. It is mathematically obvious.
To win, the systems method or strategy must predict on which side the variance swings. You want to be on the correct side more often than not.
The accuracy of prediction is by extension a prediction of variance.
Note - increased accuracy of predicting variance swing is not the only math option to win.
Quote from: Tinsoldiers on Oct 03, 02:51 AM 2019It’s a bit odd to show the edge posting videos with not considerable amount of spins. Who cares though.
When you can predict when and where the ball will fall, you need only see a few spins to understand it works. Plus my demos are typically 70 spins for the first part, then we clear the charts and re-do 70 spins. Then we compare the first 70 spins, and the second 70 spins. What are the chances that the computer keeps getting the time and place of the ball fall right, AND the two charts of 70 spins are very similar? There's more, but you get the idea.
In contrast, a system's results over 70 or 140 spins is meaningless because it has no other supporting data. Even with roulette computers, you cant look at just wins and losses. You need to carefully consider other data.
Quote from: luckyfella on Oct 03, 04:29 AM 2019Therefore, to say to win in roulette betting you have to improve the accuracy of prediction is redundant. It is mathematically obvious.
Yes and you do but dont but do but dont change odds.
Quote from: luckyfella on Oct 03, 04:29 AM 2019To win, the systems method or strategy must predict on which side the variance swings
You cant do that. Variance is variance because it's unpredictable.
You have a lot to learn. Don't go around acting like you know what you're talking about. Even less experienced people may be misled.
Quote from: Steve on Oct 03, 04:42 AM 2019
You cant do that. Variance is variance because it's unpredictable.
Yes, variance is
LUCK !
OMG, how can I ever predict
LUCK, WTF ?!?!?!
That's what caleb taught me.
How stupid can I be ?!?!?!
I've just sunk to idiotic delusional level.
No matter, this same idiotic status applies to all other systems method and strategies on forums. 😂😂😂
Steve, you just called all posters of systems forums IDIOTS ! :thumbsup:
That's right. You can't predict it. That's why it's called "variance", ie different from what's predicted.
Quote from: luckyfella on Oct 03, 04:45 AM 2019How stupid can I be ?!?!?!
I'm wondering.
Quote from: luckyfella on Oct 03, 04:45 AM 2019I've just sunk to idiotic delusional level.
You "just" did?
Quote from: luckyfella on Oct 03, 04:45 AM 2019No matter, this same idiotic status applies to all other systems method and strategies on forums.
That's right, it does. So in a case where an AP expects an edge of 10%, there might be "variance" that gives them only an 8% edge.
You might as well stop there.
Quote from: Steve on Oct 03, 04:39 AM 2019There's more, but you get the idea.
I know. I myself is an AP and I don’t use computers. But that’s not my point. My point of view is what works on AP can also be used to prove systems work or not. You get the same pattern over and over for 70 spins (not just wins and losses, but same pattern) then it doesn’t have to be tested over millions of spins to prove it to be right or wrong. Money may not be stating the facts correctly and people may be claiming wrong things, but keeping a open mind around such concepts will give a productive discussion rather than leading to a slug fest which this thread has become.
The concept is you don’t have to test a million spins to prove a system wrong or right. If you can find a system that wins on every repeat whether it happens in the first spin or 38th spin then you have a winning system. Money knows he doesn’t have it and hence he cannot prove it.
Secondly, I am not sure why someone who doesn’t worry about the money and play only occasionally has any reason not to post a system that wins. People have to work to find it - I say bullshit. It will fall in wrong hands - you kidding? Casinos will close - oh come on. Don’t take me wrong, but I don’t think money has a system that wins. But, I am one for discussion. I am here to understand different perspectives. I want to separate whiskey from water and jointly work towards seeing how do we go further on the thread he has started. He spoke about dependencies. mick spoke in the other thread about combining two spins to give a sum result to create dependencies. These are all good ideas. It is too easy to dismiss them as fallacies and given unrelated examples around RRB getting repeated and patterns. But it is difficult to give it a serious thought, which I think we should as that is one of the purposes of the forum, without claiming you have a winning system.
This thread is not the first, this thread will not be the last of such slugfests. Just saying.
Hey kav, good you come visiting. :thumbsup:
I have to call you an IDIOT,
for posting that TRIGGERS can improve the accuracy of your bets. :twisted:
Ok steve, this is lots of fun. Time to stop.
Quote from: Tinsoldiers on Oct 03, 04:57 AM 2019
These are all good ideas. It is too easy to dismiss them as fallacies and given unrelated examples around RRB getting repeated and patterns. But it is difficult to give it a serious thought, which I think we should as that is one of the purposes of the forum, without claiming you have a winning system.
This thread is not the first, this thread will not be the last of such slugfests. Just saying.
Too bad steve, as forum owner, do not allow for free flow open discussion of such ideas. He liken it to degrading his forum standard with stupidity and perpetuating fallacy. In his own words.
Actually in Steve's defence this forum is very tolerant and for the most part censorship free.
Unlike Kav's forum which will see you get removed for daring to post even the slightest criticism.
Yep, Kav's a bit tick tock.
True, the kind of BS found on this topic won't last long in the roulettelife forum. Too much useless spam and noise. Makes it much harder to identify the good stuff.
luckyfella,
I'm sorry but you'll have to call yourself an idiot because YOU are saying this, not me
I will have to call you a liar too unless you reference where I said that "TRIGGERS can improve the accuracy of my bets"
This topic is not about my systems, this is a topic by someone else making empty claims without providing anything specific.
For some reason you want to turn it into my own theories and systems. Don't do that. It's out of topic.
Are you still waiting for Money to prove his claims with his new math? Or not?
It seems you're more interested in me and my strategies. You ignore a whole topic of so many pages to focus on my own work. If you care so much about my work, please go to kavourasbet.com to learn more.
Quote from: Kav on Oct 03, 05:55 AM 2019Too much useless spam and noise. Makes it much harder to identify the good stuff.
That's quite revealing. Not very democratic is it? You have decided what the 'good' stuff is, and other posts are not tolerated (or moved to a separate thread, as you do in your forum all the time). That's against the spirit of a forum IMO. I agree that some posts are objectively off-topic but plenty of others do relate to the topic, but are deemed 'negative' by you, so are moved or removed because you want to keep the thread 'pure'.
The question on my mind is who here really wants to learn?
I don’t see much evidence of anyone wanting to learn anything new. Lots of resistance to what they think they already know.
There have been lots of questions throughout this topic with very few answers. No one has “stepped in..†anything but a mess.
How can we all learn from this and move fwd? How can we ask better questions for those who want to explore further? How can we see through what those outliers were pointing to?
But first, what is it we are really trying to accomplish? And why is that important?
Until those are answered it probably doesn’t make sense to continue.
There are so many ways to go and one, and only one solution would be a game changer for most.
How can I contribute? We know group think is not the way. That’s been proven.
Time will tell what other ways are possible.
Quote from: Kav on Oct 03, 05:55 AM 2019
luckyfella,
I will have to call you a liar too unless you reference where I said that "TRIGGERS can improve the accuracy of my bets"
Quote from: Kav on Oct 02, 02:39 PM 2019
I enjoy very much discussions about roulette strategies and progressions and triggers and money management and all that stuff.
Did I read that you enjoy
TRIGGERS in your post ?
Are you now saying you stupidly enjoy
TRIGGERS just for the sake of enjoyment ?
Are you aware that's a worse state of idiocy? :twisted:
I save you some face and and you had to deride yourself. *facepalm*
So, I write
"I enjoy very much discussions about roulette strategies and progressions and triggers and money management and all that stuff."
and you quote me as saying:
"TRIGGERS can improve the accuracy of my bets"
You are misquoting me and you are distorting the meaning of my post.
Are you a liar? I will be kind. I will let others decide...
Quote from: Kav on Oct 03, 07:15 AM 2019
So, I write
"I enjoy very much discussions about roulette strategies and progressions and triggers and money management and all that stuff."
and you quote me as saying:
"TRIGGERS can improve the accuracy of my bets"
You are misquoting me and you are distorting the meaning of my post.
Are you a liar? I will be kind. I will let others decide...
Kav, you are a forum owner posing as a roulette/math expert.
Comeon, for your own sake stop your idiocy. :lol:
It's embarrassing.
At the very least spell out clearly what you meant in your original statement.
Spare others guessing wtf you meant.
Quote from: Kav on Oct 03, 07:15 AM 2019
You are misquoting me and you are distorting the meaning of my post.
Are you a liar? I will be kind. I will let others decide...
Kav, you are a confused person.
First, you wrote I misquoted you.
Can it be that I misread your post ?
How about misinterprete ?
Misguess ? Since you prefer readers to guess your writings.
So many options to chose from yet you chose liar to suit your agenda to try discredit me. :lol:
And your idiot brain can't even think that people can easily scroll back a little to your original post to read for themselves. *facepalm*
Quote from: Kav on Oct 03, 07:15 AM 2019
So, I write
"I enjoy very much discussions about roulette strategies and progressions and triggers and money management and all that stuff."
and you quote me as saying:
"TRIGGERS can improve the accuracy of my bets"
You are misquoting me and you are distorting the meaning of my post.
Are you a liar? I will be kind. I will let others decide...
Kav, have it crossed your mind that I incorrectly assumed that you enjoy triggers to improve the accuracy of your betselection ?
If not for improved accuracy, wtf is this enjoyment of trigger about ?
Explain yourself.
Luckyfella, I'm not sure what your agenda is here but there's 22 pages on this thread now, mostly filled with back to back posts from you.
Can I suggest you take your debate with Kav away from this thread? It's completely irrelevant to the topic.
MoneyT, please continue for those who are interested.
That’s the thing the point of the topic was to share ideas to beat the game... not that I will reveal a system.
Whether I have it or I don’t! It wasn’t the point.
The attacks and the pressure from people is what’s ruining the topic. I don’t have the energy for it
If you proven I’m talking BS then say what you have to say and leave, it’s that simple. No point in going back and forth you’re just ruining the topic and others won’t even want to participate.
Quote from: MoneyT101 on Oct 03, 09:16 AM 2019
That’s the thing the point of the topic was to share ideas to beat the game... not that I will reveal a system.
Whether I have it or I don’t! It wasn’t the point.
The attacks and the pressure from people is what’s ruining the topic. I don’t have the energy for it
If you proven I’m talking BS then say what you have to say and leave, it’s that simple. No point in going back and forth you’re just ruining the topic and others won’t even want to participate.
I’m participating ( a little bit ) where I want to and I LIKE this thread. Please keep the topic going MoneyT.. those that want to learn will ignore those who don’t.
Please keep the topic going MoneyT101. it's very interesting.
Thanks!
Quote from: MoneyT101 on Oct 02, 04:12 PM 2019the original topic goal was to speak about exploring ideas on having a different approach to beat the game.
My takings from all these threads like yours, Random Thoughts etc are like this.....
All these cycles, all these cycle lengths, all these non random events etc , they need to be looked at as frameworks like you say - so organization of all the chaos. Looking beyond the next spin. Finding what you can use. Taking things and turning them into something else.
Somebody said it's a mindset
So it's about knowing the difference between what could happen and what has to happen
Its about how good you are at organizing non random events into something you can use. Having a plan, taking the results and observing, counting, and knowing where your at every spin of the way
The topic has a new home...
link:s://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=26333.msg231922;topicseen#msg231922