The purpose of this thread is to correctly understand 2 most common quoted statements on roulette forums and a few other held beliefs. This is my final thread, possibly my last contribution and post on forums. This is a discussion to discover the facts, I may be wrong.
The first one is "extra pocket with unfair payout".
This is touted by naysayers and the mathboyz as the reason why all systems bet fail itlr.
Imagine there's this game where the bettor gets paid 0.973 for win and lose - 1. So itlr the bettor loses to this unfair payout or" tax", easy to understand.
There's this underlying assumption in the conclusion above that the systems bet do not win. This "tax" do not cause the systems bet to be a non-winner.
The second one is "losing system or simply loser".
If there is no such thing as winning system. It must also mean that there's no losing system.
I won't explain this, I leave it for you to get it right. The next time anyone says your systems bet is a loser, tell that moron I wish you were right.
This leaves us a situation where our systems bet is neither winning nor losing at the same time we pay a "tax" known as house edge as we play this game.
Until and unless the systems bet is a winner that overcomes this house edge and more.
This brings us to the predictability of future spins. If future spins are absolute unpredictable then there's no chance to design a winning bet.
10reds series do not indicate a red or black next spin. Same with 9red or 11reds or any other series.
Patterns fall under this category.
I'm sure we all know this by now.
Let's go deeper into predictability.
We stare "independent and unbiased" spins in the face.
We get all the arguments on both sides.
Joe and Ares to and from discussion is a good one.
The point of this thread is to focus the attention on the word "independent".
Independent spins is the culprit why systems bet can't win nor lose, tax aside.
If you don't find dependence there's no chance for a winning bet.
Inversely, if you find dependence you have found the holy grail.
Thanks for reading.
Is anything truely "independent "
U could make the game even more independent if each slot changes its numbers with each spin .
Quote from: Anastasius on Sep 14, 04:49 AM 2020
Is anything truely "independent "
U could make the game even more independent if each slot changes its numbers with each spin .
That would only matter is there was a physical bias. Otherwise it wouldn't matter at all. You could put all black numbers on one side of the wheel and all red numbers on the other, it wouldn't change anything in randomness or independence. It's completely irrelevant how the numbers are arranged on the wheel.
Quote from: Anastasius on Sep 14, 04:49 AM 2020Is anything truely "independent "
There is one thing that is independent. It's when your bet selections, no matter what they are, produce up and down wave statistics that reflect positive or negative results. This occurs over time and from multiple spins where bets are placed.
You have the power and the permission of the casino when to bet and how much to bet during these wave formations. You can also pretend that they don't exist. You can also get mad and attack me for suggesting this. There's also feeling sorry for me for being an idiot. You can take that position. People are at different phases of their gambling experience. So they will be compelled to take a position that is dependent on that phase. There can only be one truth. Therefore there can only be independence where truth is on one side and everything else is on the other. Now get all riled up and blow off your steam. It does not matter if you think you are right while in fact you are wrong. It always comes down to proving it. So let's just stipulate that when you discover that you are wrong it will be too late to take advantage of what you found out was true.
Gizmo please stop spamming this kind of threads, we actually want to learn some facts from cht not "reading randomness" BS. Thanks
Quote from: cht on Sep 13, 10:54 PM 2020
The purpose of this thread is to correctly understand 2 most common quoted statements on roulette forums and a few other held beliefs. This is my final thread, possibly my last contribution and post on forums. This is a discussion to discover the facts, I may be wrong.
The first one is "extra pocket with unfair payout".
This is touted by naysayers and the mathboyz as the reason why all systems bet fail itlr.
Imagine there's this game where the bettor gets paid 0.973 for win and lose - 1. So itlr the bettor loses to this unfair payout or" tax", easy to understand.
There's this underlying assumption in the conclusion above that the systems bet do not win. This "tax" do not cause the systems bet to be a non-winner.
The second one is "losing system or simply loser".
If there is no such thing as winning system. It must also mean that there's no losing system.
I won't explain this, I leave it for you to get it right. The next time anyone says your systems bet is a loser, tell that moron I wish you were right.
This leaves us a situation where our systems bet is neither winning nor losing at the same time we pay a "tax" known as house edge as we play this game.
Until and unless the systems bet is a winner that overcomes this house edge and more.
This brings us to the predictability of future spins. If future spins are absolute unpredictable then there's no chance to design a winning bet.
10reds series do not indicate a red or black next spin. Same with 9red or 11reds or any other series.
Patterns fall under this category.
I'm sure we all know this by now.
Let's go deeper into predictability.
We stare "independent and unbiased" spins in the face.
We get all the arguments on both sides.
Joe and Ares to and from discussion is a good one.
The point of this thread is to focus the attention on the word "independent".
Independent spins is the culprit why systems bet can't win nor lose, tax aside.
If you don't find dependence there's no chance for a winning bet.
Inversely, if you find dependence you have found the holy grail.
Thanks for reading.
This kind of depedency applies to all kind of roulette's? Because RNG is like a slot with a "algorithm" compared to physical wheels.Thank you
Quote from: Clf7 on Sep 14, 10:02 AM 2020
This kind of depedency applies to all kind of roulette's? Because RNG is like a slot with a "algorithm" compared to physical wheels.Thank you
Good question.
From what I understand today I can tell you that RNG is not the same as real dealer, wheel and ball.
RNG works with a math Algo.
And this algo is designed to go towards greater stddev limits and more often than real wheels. That's the difference and a huge one. Due to this characteristic of RNG your systems bet surely fail. It's unreal and unlike normal spins. It's not random at all.
You're wasting your time with RNG.
So never test your systems bet with RNG and never play real money with RNG. Heed this advice.
Don't ever play the airball machine. They are video RNG. Don't get cheated.
Let me explain this correctly about RNG spins.
The spins will take the outcome towards extreme stddev, which means you either win a lot or lose a lot and vv. The spins itlr is calculated to be always balanced.
It is wrong to believe that RNG spins will make your systems bet lose. Neither will it make it win. There is no dependency except that of the Algo.
***You have to understand this basic. Random does not make your systems bet lose. It makes your systems bet not able to win itlr.
Quote from: Clf7 on Sep 14, 09:41 AM 2020Gizmo please stop spamming this kind of threads, we actually want to learn some facts from cht not "reading randomness" BS. Thanks
OK, sorry.
Cht when you mean a depedency occurs, it occurs like a pattern and then its disappears and appears again and so on, in specific spin cycle? Or its Independent from cycles etc and appears almost at every pair of spins or something like this? Thanks
The source of SPINS is irrelevant.
Quote from: Clf7 on Sep 14, 12:46 PM 2020
Cht when you mean a depedency occurs, it occurs like a pattern and then its disappears and appears again and so on, in specific spin cycle? Or its Independent from cycles etc and appears almost at every pair of spins or something like this? Thanks
Another good question.
From what I found, you will
NEVER find a dependency that remain consistently the same for long. This explains why when you run rx test of your systems bet over millions of spins you get win and loss streaks. You betted on every spin. This will not give you the dependency.
The best you get is you recognise by math and science a certain outcome that's dependent on history spins. This dependence characteristic manifest itself at higher probability in conducive spin series. Higher probability means you win more than lose itlr. That's all you will find.
The problem with gambler's is you have unrealistic expectations. You think you can easily make thousands from roulette. Your expected edge is unrealistic. Anyone claims excessive systems, AP or precog winner on any wheel is a liar.
***Do this simple test on rsim. Bet any hotties system, you will find some days you win easily. Other days you lose.
Quote from: Clf7 on Sep 14, 12:46 PM 2020
Cht when you mean a depedency occurs, it occurs like a pattern and then its disappears and appears again and so on, in specific spin cycle? Or its Independent from cycles etc and appears almost at every pair of spins or something like this? Thanks
There's a huge misunderstanding about dependent that people are looking in the wrong place.
The long list of wrong assumptions with no basis -
18uniques with no repeats means peaters are due.
Hit twice or thrice last 37spins means they are hotties that likely to hit again.
Sleepers must hit to maintain the long term hit rate.
#2 hit so #1 and #3 are likely to hit.
#1 & #31 hit first in the series so they are more likely to hit instead of later numbers.
#32 hit, since last number to #32 is clockwise, so bet 18number clockwise.
Stitch doz with lines and or street.
And so on and on..........
Zero dependent guys.
None of that make sense.
Quote from: cht on Sep 14, 02:09 PM 2020
There's a huge misunderstanding about dependent that people are looking in the wrong place.
The long list of wrong assumptions with no basis -
18uniques with no repeats means peaters are due.
Hit twice or thrice last 37spins means they are hotties that likely to hit again.
Sleepers must hit to maintain the long term hit rate.
#2 hit so #1 and #3 are likely to hit.
#1 & #31 hit first in the series so they are more likely to hit instead of later numbers.
#32 hit, since last number to #32 is clockwise, so bet 18number clockwise.
Stitch doz with lines and or street.
And so on and on..........
Zero dependent guys.
None of that make sense.
Dici di guardare solo l'ultimo numero e poter fare previsione... ma poi dici che la storia LOTT serbvirà per giocare i giri successivi... come crei dipendenza da queste affermazioni contrarie ?
Quote from: leoncino74 on Sep 14, 03:06 PM 2020
Dici di guardare solo l'ultimo numero e poter fare previsione... ma poi dici che la storia LOTT serbvirà per giocare i giri successivi... come crei dipendenza da queste affermazioni contrarie ?
If I translated this correctly it's a good question.
How can the last 37spins tell how Lott will form in the future?
Let's take this example, there are 18uniques without repeats. We can assume there won't be 18 uniques in the next 18spins. If we expect 14repeats then only 4uniques will hit. See how future spins are dependent on history spins to form future Lott distribution in this case.
This is the line of thought required to find dependency with history spins.
Put it this way, without Lott distribution anything can happen.
With Lott distribution some things can't happen.
Why place bets on those things that can't happen or less likely to happen?
Especially when science tells us how things happen in nature.
Hi cht,
these ideas you combine with maximising entropy ... ?
Quote from: Herby on Sep 14, 03:32 PM 2020
Hi cht,
these ideas you combine with maximising entropy ... ?
Yes, it's the natural state.
If anyone understands this properly he should know where to look for dependency. Think hard. 🤔
We don't predict what numbers hit next.
We place bets that will form this "entropy" state which is seen in Lott distribution.
Quote :
**
Let's take this example, there are 18uniques without repeats
We can assume there won't be 18 uniques in the next 18spins.
**
Same this ( why only LOTT ? ) ,
.......... there are 18uniques without repeats,
Order them into ababababababababab or aabbaabbaa...................
or abcabcabcabc...........or aabbccaabbcc.................
We can assume there won t last in the same order /positions for the next xx spins,
even if new numbers hit ( and order them in same order)
Disorder (mix ) is around the corner......
Quote from: cht on Sep 14, 03:41 PM 2020We place bets that will form this "entropy" state which is seen in Lott distribution.
I see only 2 ways, both can be doubled. :sad2:
will be a lot of programming the next rainy days
cht,
First you say this :
Quote from: cht on Sep 14, 02:09 PM 2020There's a huge misunderstanding about dependent that people are looking in the wrong place.
18 uniques with no repeats means peaters are due.
Zero dependent guys.
None of that make sense.
Then to answer Leoncino74's question you say :
QuoteLet's take this example, there are 18uniques without repeats. We can assume there won't be 18 uniques in the next 18spins. If we expect 14repeats then only 4uniques will hit. See how future spins are dependent on history spins to form future Lott distribution in this case.
Isn't this a blatant contradiction? ???
Quote from: Joe on Sep 15, 04:30 AM 2020
cht,
First you say this :
Then to answer Leoncino74's question you say :
Isn't this a blatant contradiction? ???
I was waiting for someone to point it out, waited so long. 🤔
Notice I listed it at the top of the list.
I don't want to be rude to someone else. I think you know who.
So I won't provide explanation for this contradiction.
Good call out anyway. 👍
At least someone is reading.
Quote from: cht on Sep 15, 04:37 AM 2020So I won't provide explanation for this contradiction.
Ok, well at least you're honest. So it's just another thread of riddles, then. In which case I won't be replying to any more posts in the thread. :thumbsup:
Seriously. Who has the time or energy to keep chasing riddles. It’s not helping anyone.
Quote from: Joe on Sep 15, 07:28 AM 2020
Ok, well at least you're honest. So it's just another thread of riddles, then. In which case I won't be replying to any more posts in the thread. :thumbsup:
Joe, The title of this thread is
"Lets get this correct"Quote from: cht on Sep 13, 10:54 PM 2020
The purpose of this thread is to correctly understand 2 most common quoted statements on roulette forums and a few other held beliefs. This is my final thread, possibly my last contribution and post on forums. This is a discussion to discover the facts, I may be wrong.
I wrote this in the very first sentence.
This thread should have only one post, ie. the first post.
Any discussion centered around this post.
I strongly believe many of you didn't get it correct.
Some of you assume you get it correct but NO you are wrong.
This thread is not a systems betting thread.
There's is no riddle to guess. None.
Only math to educate yourself.
If you don't know the math you have zero chance to design a systems bet with positive edge.
I responded to queries because I stepped out to help.
From this point onwards it shall be on topic that's contained in the first post.
How many of you are aware there is ZERO losing betselection ?
Yup, zero.
Bet you didn't know this.
This is the purpose of this thread.
Quote from: cht on Sep 15, 11:13 AM 2020
How many of you are aware there is ZERO losing betselection ?
Yup, zero.
Bet you didn't know this.
This is the purpose of this thread.
What do you mean? betting every spin and winning or end very session with + ?
Quote from: Clf7 on Sep 15, 11:17 AM 2020betting every spin and winning or end very session
could be : betting every spin and end every session with Zero (no win, no loss) ?
I don't know such a bet.
Sorry cht, but from a scienced based view its completly impossible
Quote from: Clf7 on Sep 15, 11:17 AM 2020
What do you mean? betting every spin and winning or end very session with + ?
Imagine you bet your favourite numbers, lets say
#2,3,13,26,32,36This is your betselection every time you visit the casino, you bet the same thing.
I have a simple question for everyone.
QUESTION
Is this #2,3,13,26,36 a losing betselection ?If possible post on this thread your answer.
Joe, pls post your answer to this simple question.
***To make the question less complicated, lets say you play on no zero roulette.
Betting some inside bets randomly, is a random bet so random accuracy
Quote from: cht on Sep 15, 11:44 AM 2020***To make the question less complicated, lets say you play on no zero roulette.
That changes everything and the expected value becomes zero, therefore the bet is not a losing bet.
However if you add the zero, your constant bet of 2,3,13,26,36 is a losing bet. You bet on these same numbers an infinite number of times, the result will be infinite loss.
Quote from: ati on Sep 15, 11:56 AM 2020
That changes everything and the expected value becomes zero, therefore the bet is not a losing bet.
However if you add the zero, your constant bet of 2,3,13,26,36 is a losing bet. You bet on these same numbers an infinite number of times, the result will be infinite loss.
If this bet is not a losing bet, the next question is,
Is this bet a winning bet ?
It isn't. It is a break even, or a zero expected value bet.
Not sure where you are going with this. Do you have differential betting on your mind? So if you bet and lose 1 unit on Low, you can pretend that your bet was 12 units on Low and 1 unit on the high street that hit. So you could always say that you won.
Quote from: ati on Sep 15, 12:24 PM 2020
It isn't. It is a break even, or a zero expected value bet.
Not sure where you are going with this. Do you have differential betting on your mind? So if you bet and lose 1 unit on Low, you can pretend that your bet was 12 units on Low and 1 unit on the high street that hit. So you could always say that you won.
So in a no zero roulette, we can agree
there are no losing betselection, and
there are no winning betselection.It is very important everyone understands this basic math.
If you get this basic math correct about this no lose no win betselection then we can move forward.
The dreaded ZERO.
Think of it as a seperate cost for the privilege to place bets.
Assume you make a $100 bet, for each spin.
You are required to pay a 2.7% betting tax everytime or $2.70
After paying this 2.7% tax, then you proceed to place your bets.
The very important question is with your favourite betting numbers #2,3,13,26,36
Did this 2.7% tax make your bet win or lose or it did nothing to your bet ?
In this case it did nothing to our bet
Quote from: Clf7 on Sep 15, 12:41 PM 2020
In this case it did nothing to our bet
So what have we learned so far,
1. ZERO has no effect on the outcome of our bet.
(Imagine this zero with unfair payout as a betting tax)
2. Our betselection is neither a winning nor losing bet.
3. Our betselection is no better than the monkey's betselection
With this starting point in the post above, ask yourself........
Quote from: cht on Sep 14, 02:09 PM 2020
The long list of wrong assumptions with no basis -
18uniques with no repeats means peaters are due.
Hit twice or thrice last 37spins means they are hotties that likely to hit again.
Sleepers must hit to maintain the long term hit rate.
#2 hit so #1 and #3 are likely to hit.
#1 & #31 hit first in the series so they are more likely to hit instead of later numbers.
#32 hit, since last number to #32 is clockwise, so bet 18number clockwise.
Stitch doz with lines and or street.
And so on and on..........
Do you still believe all this crap found on forums can ever turn a
non-winning nor losing bet into a winning bet ?
Do you realise what crap you believe in now ?
There's no magic in that colorful and enchanting list.
Wake up people. You have slept for a very long time.
Some for more than a decade. Help yourself.
At the minimum, get the math basics of roulette correct.
Read this thread over and over again until you get this aha moment to properly and fully understand the math of roulette game.
Tell yourself over and over again,
There is no winning nor losing betselection.
Math itself cant be the solution, its impossible to beat the game only based on math, otherwise all the math professors would be millionaire
Quote from: Clf7 on Sep 15, 01:06 PM 2020
Math itself cant be the solution, its impossible to beat the game only based on math, otherwise all the math professors would be millionaire
I strongly suggest that we do not post our opinions.
This causes friction and arguments that benefit no one.
Zero benefit.
If anyone is interested in this aspect, read the conversation between Joe and Ares on the other thread.
Do your own research, get hold of academic material to read.
Educate yourself.
Start with the basics on this thread.
Lets get this correct.
Seems you had a good laugh with maximizing entropy :xd: >:D
Quote from: Herby on Sep 15, 01:30 PM 2020
Seems you had a good laugh with maximizing entropy :xd: >:D
Herby, the best thing that's happened.
I have to thank Jerome, Firefox and Joe for the math education.
I am certain many of you didn't know the actual math.
I am certain many are surprised what you have just learnt.
I bet many of you still remain skeptical and refuse to accept the facts.
I am certain many of you will continue to make this error of understanding.
Joe or anyone, pls confirm what I have written to be true or not.
Call out the error if there's any. Thank you.
I welcome criticisms.
Remain civil in this discourse.
Hi Cht,,, I want to play 6 numbers continuously,,, double street... After win I need to change street,,, as per your knowledge,,, how many spins data is better to choose one double street,,, and what parameters I can choose to select one double street,,, a double street can be hot,, or medium hot or cold, mean no hit etc,,,
Quote from: Elite on Sep 17, 04:45 AM 2020
Hi Cht,,, I want to play 6 numbers continuously,,, double street... After win I need to change street,,, as per your knowledge,,, how many spins data is better to choose one double street,,, and what parameters I can choose to select one double street,,, a double street can be hot,, or medium hot or cold, mean no hit etc,,,
Your question is a little outside the scope of this thread.
However, I will answer your question in the context of math that Joe has written on the other thread.
Whatever numbers we place bet, we call it event A.
Whatever numbers we don't place bet we call it event B.
Where events A and B are equal and opposite.
To win event A must hit at a rate higher than event B itlr.
If you bet one double streetX, then over the long run double street must hit higher rate than the odds.
For example in 37spins it must hit higher than 6 times itlr.
Base on the math, the long run hit rate is 6 for each cycle giving a no win no loss situation. While you pay House Edge tax for every spin betted.
So to win betting one double street, there must be compelling reason why it hits higher than odds.
We have to assume future spins are independent and unbiased always.
Until and unless you possess evidence that says otherwise.
Do you have evidence that show
event A hits higher rate than event B? Where events A and B are equal and opposite.
It's much better when there's plausible science and/or math basis.
I explained on the other thread that hot or cold is a count made on history spins.
Hot numbers were hot in history spins.
Cold numbers were cold in history spins.
There's no science nor math that says hot numbers remain hot or cold numbers remain cold in future spins vv.
We are betting on future spins.
Assuming independent and unbiased spins, there are neither hot nor cold numbers itlr.
Quote from: cht on Sep 17, 08:13 AM 2020
Do you have evidence that show event A hits higher rate than event B?
Let event A be RRR.
Event B (consists of 2 combinations) - RRB / RBR.
The output event B will appear at 75%. But this alone cannot help ...
Error, event B consists of 3 combinations - RBR / RRB / RBB
CHT, still waiting for your answer to my reply ( 17).
And did you abandoned the Vdw/Arithmetic Progression/ Couplets stuff ? ( for example the Wiggy way).
Quote from: Kattila on Sep 14, 03:52 PM 2020
Quote :
**
Let's take this example, there are 18uniques without repeats
We can assume there won't be 18 uniques in the next 18spins.
**
Same this ( why only LOTT ? ) ,
.......... there are 18uniques without repeats,
Order them into ababababababababab or aabbaabbaa...................
or abcabcabcabc...........or aabbccaabbcc.................
We can assume there won t last in the same order /positions for the next xx spins,
even if new numbers hit ( and order them in same order)
Disorder (mix ) is around the corner......
As I responded to Joe's post.
I gave that example to show the type of thinking.
Waiting for 18hits with no repeats will not give any advantage, still a no win nor loss bet.
Same as waiting for 10reds series.
Triggers will not change this independent nature of roulette spins.
When you put everything together you will find that all these ideas posted on forum will not change anything. Betselection remains not winner nor loser.
Quote from: Kattila on Sep 17, 11:01 AM 2020
And did you abandoned the Vdw/Arithmetic Progression/ Couplets stuff ? ( for example the Wiggy way).
Vdw requires a complicated count that's not possible for real play in b&m casino.
Here's how casinos cheat.
2types of cheat.
First is when you bet red dealer press some buttons ball lands on black.
This happens with rogue casinos with blatant low class cheat.
The real cheat casinos are top notch professionals in this business.
They refine their spins that your betselection no matter what they are will always show up balanced with no win and no loss. Winners and losers are temporary and unpredictable.
All the players will "lose" to the house edge tax.
This way the mathboyz as usual do the dirty job pointing to the random nature of spins that's independent and unbiased. Bla bla bla....... Players, mathboyz, naysayers, smarties, marketers, scammers all in this mix fighting each other with own agenda.
Casino is the winner. 😂
Quote from: cht on Sep 17, 11:52 AM 2020All the players will "lose" to the house edge tax.
Really?
Quote from: cht on Sep 17, 11:22 AM 2020
Vdw requires a complicated count that's not possible for real play in b&m casino.
Doesn’t do a thing - complicated or not. It’s basically a bet on the dominant. Been saying that for years but people keep chasing their own tails.
Quote from: precogmiles on Sep 17, 12:40 PM 2020
Really?
Read what ati wrote.
Quote from: ati on Sep 15, 11:56 AM 2020
That changes everything and the expected value becomes zero, therefore the bet is not a losing bet.
However if you add the zero, your constant bet of 2,3,13,26,36 is a losing bet. You bet on these same numbers an infinite number of times, the result will be infinite loss.
This is the math.
I know it's hard to accept, it's what it is.
All the fancy bets posted on forums are the same.
All the gurus betselection are no different from Ignatus betselection.
No different from those uncles and aunties who betted their superstitious favourite numbers.
No different from those who rain chips on the carpet.
The real professional math wizards are paid by the casino to make sure the wheels spit out "random" spins that are independent and unbiased. These professionals ensure that the end result is always balanced at no win or loss betselection. Player pays house edge tax.
What about reading randomness?
Can it’s bet selections beat the casino?
Quote from: winforus on Sep 17, 08:12 PM 2020Can it’s bet selections beat the casino?
Please at least get it right. Can its use of win streaks beat the casino.
Quote from: winforus on Sep 17, 08:12 PM 2020
What about reading randomness?
Can it’s bet selections beat the casino?
Taking this statement on face value, "reading randomness" is oxymoron.
Talking about streaks, I take it to mean trend or continuous series. Eg. continuous series of reds.
First we have to define what a streak means. We don't know a streak of reds until we see one. We don't know when it ends.
Unless we can predict either,
1. When a streak start, or
2. When a streak end
With accuracy better than expected probability.
I classify this kind of play under precognition with or without aid.
If the player possesses this kind of special ability then yes the betselection may have a positive edge. The professional math wizards cannot protect the casino's assets against such players. Ban is their only recourse.
***I am not endorsing precognition. I have no idea about it. I wrote the above based on the assumption that it works as precogman claimed on this forum. ***
Lets move this discussion forward.
I bring to your attention the table limits.
If this game is played without table max limit, a simple martingale progression beats this game.
To say that negative progression is a loser is wrong. Martingale is a loser is wrong.
The imposed table max limit prevents negative progressions from winning.
Some of you know this,
BUT do you understand fully what this actually means ?
If the variance of random spins has no limit as the math says then table limit is not necessary.
How often such no limit spin series occur is important.
The question then comes down to how much risk the casino chose to expose their business to.
The argument the casinos use for table limits is their risk tolerance policy.
Their financial backers need this assurance hence the business model as we see it.
Cht you tell us basically that we are completly fucked up and we wont ever find a method to beat Roulette (except advanced stuff like steve's computer etc) ....i think we got that :xd:
cht, I don't see where you're going with this. A while ago you hinted strongly that by using markov chains and LOTT a winning system is possible, but they contradict the principle that spins are independent, and that there are no winning bet selections due to this fact. So what avenues remain for the HG hunter?
1. Precognition
2. AP
That's it, right?
Quote from: Joe on Sep 18, 02:53 AM 2020
cht, I don't see where you're going with this. A while ago you hinted strongly that by using markov chains and LOTT a winning system is possible, but they contradict the principle that spins are independent, and that there are no winning bet selections due to this fact. So what avenues remain for the HG hunter?
1. Precognition
2. AP
That's it, right?
I had to create this thread to delve into the details of what the math says.
We can't presume that everyone properly understands the math involved. This thread puts it in the way that everyone gets it. I believe some of them understand it properly for the first time.
I expect many systems players hate me for doing this, like rubbing dung in their face. But that's not my intention.
Here's my purpose of this thread, to state the facts as it is. And the controversy about this subject at the core of roulette heats up from now on. I expect some to feel more dung in their faces, more people gets riled up, some brighten up, more people start to shuffle their feet to place themselves on their chosen side of this great divide, all reflecting their individual motive towards this game. What anyone write from hereon tells lots about the writer. YOU.
Let's plod on.
I shall start by declaring that my sole purpose is to make coins from this game. Period.
Quote from: Joe on Sep 18, 02:53 AM 2020
So what avenues remain for the HG hunter?
1. Precognition
2. AP
That's it, right?
The list of avenues that players explore are broadly categorised under,
1. AP - roulette computer,
2. AP - without RC,
3. Precognition,
4. Systems bet - negative progression,
5. Systems bet - dependent spins
I try to explore each one of them as best I can. Anyone can post their points of view.
Although AP - RC is attractive backed by physics and math, acknowledged by industry experts as a scourge, their illegal status in some jurisdictions and not allowed in the rest jurisdictions is a major turn off.
What comes immediately to mind is the thousands upon thousands of physicists and ME who should be onto this. But the industry are not threatened, its business as usual. Why has the pot of gold not attracted the best talent into this field? 🤔
Testimonies from physicists and ME about this subject carry more weight and relevance than gamblers' opinion on forums.
The same with AP - no RC. Their methods are crude.
Until I read academic papers specific on this application, I am not convinced one bit that I should spend any time, effort, money on this.
Precognition, a subject I have no idea. I prefer to stay out. Period. No comments, comments won't be relevant anyway.
Like all these systems players, after the elimination process it left me with systems betting.
Personally, I am bias math where I studied A-level math which covered statistics and am a CA by profession which has certain content on statistics. So its only natural that I explore this game from the angle of math.
The problem was I was not competent enough in math. I clearly lack the required math understanding to comprehend what the math of roulette means in its basic form. Without this base there's no starting point. So I educated myself, reading Bayes, Jerome, Firefox and your posts.
Ofc I was a systems junkie jumping from one guru to the next for many years. From one pattern to the next.
For those of us who put in the time, we know all those ideas fail.
Systems betting comes down to 2 points of contention,
1. Negative progression - when TurboG wrote random has limits it caused an uproar. Blasphemy!
I am not into negative progression. Idk. I am on the side of random is unlimited UNTIL there's proof. I am not convinced that it can be otherwise. But I am open minded enough it may exist.
2. Independent spins - I have been "arm twisted" to publicly declare clearly my stance on this very contentious point. Contradiction is thrown at my face several times and more expected, not going to stop as this is another blasphemous statement.
I am sure we all understand what it means when future spins are dependent on history spins. Holy grail.
I point you guys to read Joe and Ares discourse on the other thread. You make up your own mind about whether it's possible with dependent spins. The next step is EVIDENCE to seal it for YOU. No one can do it for you except YOU.
No math professor, Einstein, Bayes, Jerome, Firefox or Joe can change your mind what the EVIDENCE speak to YOU.
This thread is NOT about how to win in roulette, NOT a systems betting thread definitely.
What this thread hope to achieve for systems bettors is,
If you chose negative progression aka money management you must know that from a math standpoint you must possess proof that random has limits.
If random has limits then your negative progression is a winner vv.
My point is the problem don't lie with the progression BUT,
it lies with this assumption that random has limits.
â€"-------------â€"--------------------------------
Next, if you flatbet with no progression then the premise of your bet is that future spins are dependent on history spins. Again you must have PROOF. Its that simple.
People say they understand this basics, yet they go hunting the next fancy pattern, design the next fancy betselection with no basis.
The point that needs to be driven home is without dependent spins everything else thereon is a waste of time.
Which bring us to the crux of this contentious issue.
Do you understand what dependent spins mean?
In what manner, shape and form?
If you don't know what you're looking for, how are you suppose to find it?
It is naturally and spontaneously occurring with real spins.
In this context, those who stand by the side of math theory has very little to contribute.
I believe you are smart enough to know that nobody provides this proof to you. Ofc you reserve the right to assume that no proof means the theory remains unchanged.
----------------------------------------------
CONCLUSION
If you hope to find or design a systems bet with positive edge you have to prove one of the following,
1. Random has limits, for negative progression, or
2. Dependent spins for flatbet betselection.
This thread is very confusing, Cht I thought you had a positive edge?
Have you manages to do either of the following points?
Quote from: cht on Sep 18, 04:50 AM 20201. Random has limits, for negative progression, or
2. Dependent spins for flatbet betselection.
Quote from: precogmiles on Sep 18, 05:05 AM 2020
This thread is very confusing, Cht I thought you had a positive edge?
Precog is right, we all thought that
Quote from: precogmiles on Sep 18, 05:05 AM 2020
This thread is very confusing, Cht I thought you had a positive edge?
Have you manages to do either of the following points?
I don't want this thread to be about me.
If I openly declare that yes I have the proof, complete DNA of dependent spins.
You will still not believe. I must have made a mistake somewhere. The test data is too small to draw any meaningful conclusion. I am lying. Why am I not making my millions instead of posting on forums. Bla, bla, bla......
Predictable personal attack that benefit no one. More important no one cares dafuq.
All everyone is interested with this thread is how to find this dependent spins?
What I have done is to write down on this thread the path I took to reach where you want to be.
Problem is you want it be handed to you on a silver platter that says bet here and here........
If anyone is serious enough, desire enough to want this, then first he has to educate himself about the math, read this thread and my posts the last few months. Some things are not difficult to figure out. Piece them together. They are there if you care to find them.
I am confident one or two of you will find it eventually. So
This is my one and only response to this question. That has no bearing on your own journey.
Quote from: cht on Sep 18, 09:37 AM 2020
I don't want this thread to be about me.
If I openly declare that yes I have the proof, complete DNA of dependent spins.
You will still not believe. I must have made a mistake somewhere. The test data is too small to draw any meaningful conclusion. I am lying. Why am I not making my millions instead of posting on forums. Bla, bla, bla......
Predictable personal attack that benefit no one. More important no one cares dafuq.
All everyone is interested with this thread is how to find this dependent spins?
What I have done is to write down on this thread the path I took to reach where you want to be.
Problem is you want it be handed to you on a silver platter that says bet here and here........
If anyone is serious enough, desire enough to want this, then first he has to educate himself about the math, read this thread and my posts the last few months. Some things are not difficult to figure out. Piece them together. They are there if you care to find them.
I am confident one or two of you will find it eventually. So
This is my one and only response to this question. That has no bearing on your own journey.
Interesting. So you have the holy grail = positive edge.
Can you demonstrate this for us on MPR or roulette simulator?
Quote from: precogmiles on Sep 18, 10:54 AM 2020Interesting. So you have the holy grail = positive edge.
Can you demonstrate this for us on MPR or roulette simulator?
Stop making me lose brain cells
CHT, have you been playing and winning real money with these findings? If so, for how long and what is roughly your edge or EV (%) ?
Hi Cht, good to know you have edge in gameplay, to test continous spins of data can only make proof, roulette is random game, history will not give edge or maths. I coded almost every theory in program and tested on thousands of spins, it failes, some time after 500 spins or 1k spins, etc,
may be you also face this if you test your theory on number of spins from different tables. Roulette is based on maths, in that case also, there is so called law of third, will not allow you to get advantage of either hits or no hits. Dependent or indepent spins not matter , unless dealr has biased, or table, but good luck for your findings, enjoy winning
Just want to clear up this misunderstanding.
Genuine roulette wheels, dealer and ball can't fail to spit out roulette spins. There's no such thing as fail with roulette spins.
If roulette spins are independent then there is no possibility for winning or losing betselection vv.
This means creative, fancy, unique bet design is no different from a betselection by a monkey. If you take this as an insult it means you don't understand the math.
If you claim you understand the math, then design the next fancy betselection, or test another betselection with no basis, it clearly shows a contradiction - you don't understand the math.
Lastly, whether I wrote this stuff or not doesn't change a thing. This is the math. I didn't make this up. So no point you vent your frustration at me.
You should appreciate that I brought this up, that's the purpose of this thread. Now you know. Whether you accept or not doesn't change anything.
CHT, Just to make you understand something.
Just because you can't become a doctor, a lawyer, or a judge doesn't mean no one else can not become one.
Just clarifying your misunderstanding.
Quote from: Azim on Sep 18, 09:25 PM 2020
CHT, Just to make you understand something.
Just because you can't become a doctor, a lawyer, or a judge doesn't mean no one else can not become one.
Just clarifying your misunderstanding.
This post clearly demonstrate misunderstanding. There are so many posts that make the same mistake. The reason for this thread.
The topic is about the math of roulette.
The specific matter is
independent spins. This is universal for everyone, both the casino and player.
IF the spins are independent no one can do magic to predict future spins.
Your post claims you can with independent spins.
Sir, you have not properly understand the math. It is impossible. I have to call out your claim as nonsense because it is.
Quote from: cht on Sep 18, 06:46 PM 2020
Just want to clear up this misunderstanding.
Genuine roulette wheels, dealer and ball can't fail to spit out roulette spins. There's no such thing as fail with roulette spins.
If roulette spins are independent then there is no possibility for winning or losing betselection vv.
This means creative, fancy, unique bet design is no different from a betselection by a monkey. If you take this as an insult it means you don't understand the math.
If you claim you understand the math, then design the next fancy betselection, or test another betselection with no basis, it clearly shows a contradiction - you don't understand the math.
Lastly, whether I wrote this stuff or not doesn't change a thing. This is the math. I didn't make this up. So no point you vent your frustration at me.
You should appreciate that I brought this up, that's the purpose of this thread. Now you know. Whether you accept or not doesn't change anything.
The only reason why I said what I said, the Winning system or people winning at roulette have put in their time to win. Which for some is putting time in to become a lawyer, doctor, or judge!! If you can't become one which means you have a losing system. You haven't put in enough time to become a doctor, lawyer, or judge.
Look at any professional sports player. they have put in their time to get where they are.
House edge as I have said before is like paying taxes. You either work around it or just shy of and let the MATH guys throw you off.
Quote from: Azim on Sep 18, 09:59 PM 2020
The only reason why I said what I said, the Winning system or people winning at roulette have put in their time to win. Which for some is putting time in to become a lawyer, doctor, or judge!! If you can't become one which means you have a losing system. You haven't put in enough time to become a doctor, lawyer, or judge.
Look at any professional sports player. they have put in their time to get where they are.
House edge as I have said before is like paying taxes. You either work around it or just shy of and let the MATH guys throw you off.
I agree with what you wrote.
BUT we cannot assume independent spins and claim we can design winning systems.
Independent spins means prediction is not possible.
So, if anyone says he plays a winning systems bet, he must assume that spins are not independent.
That's why when anyone claims winning system mathboyz point to this independent nature of random spins.
That's what this thread is all about.
I repeat the core contention about roulette spins,
1. Random is unlimited vs random has limits, and
2. Independent spins vs not independent spins
Systems players should feel privileged that the industry experts see winning systems bet is not possible with independent spins.
Hi Cht, so you mean spins are dependent on math,, so it can be predicted?
Quote from: Elite on Sep 18, 10:26 PM 2020
Hi Cht, so you mean spins are dependent on math,, so it can be predicted?
The moment the player refers to history spins to place his bet, he is assuming that roulette spins are not independent.
If he assumes roulette spins are independent, then he makes no reference to history spins.
It does not matter if he plays wheel 1 or 2 or3 or whatever wheel.
Whatever history spins make no difference to his betselection.
Example of such a bet is favourite numbers.
If any player believe future spins are predictable, then he must assume that roulette spins are not independent.
Quote from: cht on Sep 18, 10:33 PM 2020
The moment the player refers to history spins to place his bet, he is assuming that roulette spins are not independent.
If he assumes roulette spins are independent, then he makes no reference to history spins.
It does not matter if he plays wheel 1 or 2 or3 or whatever wheel.
Whatever history spins make no difference to his betselection.
Example of such a bet is favourite numbers.
If any player believe future spins are predictable, then he must assume that roulette spins are not independent.
If the above was true we would have had no statisticians in the world. There would be no reason to look at history if we aren't going to learn from it.
Quote from: Joe on Sep 04, 04:22 AM 2020
While it's true that you can't prove independence, there are lots of cases where it's intuitively obvious. I would argue that roulette is one such case because there is clearly no connection between one spin and the next, assuming normal conditions. But if it isn't intuitively obvious, there are statistical tests such as the Chi-square test for independence which you can use for any events A and B. If you can find a dependence between them and it's strong enough, you have your holy grail.
Again, this is a poor understanding of 'independent'. An event cannot be independent on its own. You must always specify another event with respect to which the event is independent from, otherwise it has no meaning.
Joe, I agree with everything you wrote.
Except this one small part about the existence of this tiny incidence of dependence.
Which is necessary for prediction to be possible.
I am 100% certain. I can't explain it.
It baffles me why dependence exist in independent spins.
A clear contradiction.
I am not saying that roulette spins are completely not independent.
I'm not stretching this interpretation that far.
Don't misinterpret what I wrote to mean something I don't mean to say.
It's a tiny form of non-independent nature.
So, Joe you read my posts with this small exception.
Quote from: cht on Sep 19, 01:21 AM 2020
Joe, I agree with everything you wrote.
Except this one small part about the existence of this tiny incidence of dependence.
Which is necessary for prediction to be possible.
I am 100% certain. I can't explain it.
It baffles me why dependence exist in independent spins.
A clear contradiction.
I am not saying that roulette spins are completely not independent.
I'm not stretching this interpretation that far.
Don't misinterpret what I wrote to mean something I don't mean to say.
It's a tiny form of non-independent nature.
So, Joe you read my posts with this small exception.
No field work yet?
Cht, what is the point of this thread?
Steve and few others who understand this game have been saying this for many years. There is nothing new here.
Quote from: winforus on Sep 19, 05:22 AM 2020
Cht, what is the point of this thread?
Steve and few others who understand this game have been saying this for many years. There is nothing new here.
First off if you read Steve and the few others posts you will know they didn't get it right.
If you can't see that then you didn't get it right either.
This thread is not about Steve or the few others anyway.
Lets not get into that line of discussion.
The thread title is,
"Let's get this correct"Perhaps, on hindsight, I should have included this word "
together" at the end.
If anyone has anything to contribute to this topic which I spelled out clearly he is welcome to post his views.
If anyone spot any factual mistake he is welcome to point it out.
If anyone disagree he is welcome to post his point of view.
There have been significant changes in the points of views of the absolute "truths" about roulette spins.
If you read members posts you will see that happen.
It all comes down to "seeing is believing" and "I believe whom I chose to believe" certainly not a internet stranger.
I have summarised the points of contention about roulette spins where the disagreement and quarrels are centered upon.
At the minimum we know why all the quarrels that go on in forums.
If anyone can't say "I got it right now." with this thread, then YOU are beyond redemption sir.
This is the point of this thread.
***I have written everything possible, nothing more to add.
The discourse between Joe and Ares is relevant to this thread.
link:s://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=27403.msg244421#msg244421
Quote from: cht on Sep 19, 05:47 AM 2020
First off if you read Steve and the few others posts you will know they didn't get it right.
If you can't see that then you didn't get it right either.
This thread is not about Steve or the few others anyway.
Lets not get into that line of discussion.
The thread title is,
"Let's get this correct"
Perhaps, on hindsight, I should have included this word "together" at the end.
If anyone has anything to contribute to this topic which I spelled out clearly he is welcome to post his views.
If anyone spot any factual mistake he is welcome to point it out.
If anyone disagree he is welcome to post his point of view.
There have been significant changes in the points of views of the absolute "truths" about roulette spins.
If you read members posts you will see that happen.
It all comes down to "seeing is believing" and "I believe whom I chose to believe" certainly not a internet stranger.
I have summarised the points of contention about roulette spins where the disagreement and quarrels are centered upon.
At the minimum we know why all the quarrels that go on in forums.
If anyone can't say "I got it right now." with this thread, then YOU are beyond redemption sir.
This is the point of this thread.
***I have written everything possible, nothing more to add.
The discourse between Joe and Ares is relevant to this thread.
link:s://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=27403.msg244421#msg244421
One foot in...
Nice.
Cht i thought you gonna help us a little more than vaddi, dyks etc did, but again riddles and riddles + the same statements....I dont know whats your goal finally is, i think its more to play the guru here and to disappear than to help because i can guarantee you that nobody will find a solution with this general statements. You will go in "forum history" as another one who claimed to have a positive edge, actually said some interesting things but finally again absolute nothing to help the members here.The same game over and over again in this forum and its "gurus", history repeats itself...
Quote from: Clf7 on Sep 19, 10:50 AM 2020
Cht i thought you gonna help us a little more than vaddi, dyks etc did, but again riddles and riddles + the same statements....I dont know whats your goal finally is, i think its more to play the guru here and to disappear than to help because i can guarantee you that nobody will find a solution with this general statements. You will go in "forum history" as another one who claimed to have a positive edge, actually said some interesting things but finally again absolute nothing to help the members here.The same game over and over again in this forum and its "gurus", history repeats itself...
Seductive, isn't it?
Quote from: Clf7 on Sep 19, 10:50 AM 2020
Cht i thought you gonna help us a little more than vaddi, dyks etc did, but again riddles and riddles + the same statements....I dont know whats your goal finally is, i think its more to play the guru here and to disappear than to help because i can guarantee you that nobody will find a solution with this general statements. You will go in "forum history" as another one who claimed to have a positive edge, actually said some interesting things but finally again absolute nothing to help the members here.The same game over and over again in this forum and its "gurus", history repeats itself...
You and everyone else can think whatever of me. I couldn't care less.
I shall never return. :thumbsup:
I have written repeatedly that this thread is
NOT a systems thread.
You can insist that I teach you how to win.
You can insist that I carried myself as a guru.
I can't stop you from whatever thoughts you have. You have the free choice.
BUT I never made a single statement to that effect.
I am not responsible for some random person to misread or misinterprete deliberately or otherwise what I wrote.
You WON'T find such things written on this thread.
This thread is about writing down as a formal record on this forum the math facts about roulette.If there's any other math fact that members feel should be written on this thread, you are welcome to contribute.
This is my final post on this forum.
link:s://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=20484.msg242364#msg242364
how we can know that history spins help to get accuracy? that we can start from 4 numbers, starting from any combination, then move to domain of 8 numbers with all combination, then move to 16, with all combination , if results are random then means, roulette spins are independent and cannot be beaten, but if for some particular sequence, we see some outcomes are more than ususal, then we can say , roulette spins are not independent and can be predicted,
For my experiments, some time , with particular sequence, number comes and some one can hit and get profit, but with same sequnce when repeated on thousands of spins(500 to 2k ), then resulsts becomes independent, means random. and may be system goes up and down but after continous play of 8 hours e.g , it will go down, as tax need to pay
Quote from: cht on Sep 19, 11:04 AM 2020
You and everyone else can think whatever of me. I couldn't care less.
I shall never return. :thumbsup:
I have written repeatedly that this thread is NOT a systems thread.
You can insist that I teach you how to win.
You can insist that I carried myself as a guru.
I can't stop you from whatever thoughts you have. You have the free choice.
BUT I never made a single statement to that effect.
I am not responsible for some random person to misread or misinterprete deliberately or otherwise what I wrote.
You WON'T find such things written on this thread.
This thread is about writing down as a formal record on this forum the math facts about roulette.
If there's any other math fact that members feel should be written on this thread, you are welcome to contribute.
You sassy.
Looks like another wannabe Guru. Gizmontron had his turn and CHT also wanted some attention.
If he found a way to win - he would be busy banking and not spending his time writing scribbles.
If he wanted to help others - it would be clear and easy to understand.
Bye bye, you won't be missed.
Quote from: winforus on Sep 19, 11:22 AM 2020
If he wanted to help others - it would be clear and easy to understand.
Exactly, riddles doesnt help anyone, i dont know how cht thinks that getting some math facts will help anyone at all....i came to the conclusion that he does it for attention like others did in the past, sadly because i thought he would be different.
Quote from: winforus on Sep 19, 11:22 AM 2020Gizmontron had his turn
I'm not going anywhere spandex boy.
At the forum where Reading Randomness is shared there is a very rich guy suggesting that you can treat Baccarat as a business. He needs to be treated to what you are having your turn in life about. People are just discussing it without your special feature of tripe. You are needed.
Quote from: gizmotron2 on Sep 19, 11:31 AM 2020
I'm not going anywhere spandex boy.
At the forum where Reading Randomness is shared there is a very rich guy suggesting that you can treat Baccarat as a business. He needs to be treated to what you are having your turn in life about. People are just discussing it without your special feature of tripe. You are needed.
Get some yet?
Complete waste of time.
What has anyone learned here other than a wild goose chase?
Quote from: gizmotron2 on Sep 19, 11:31 AM 2020
I'm not going anywhere spandex boy.
At the forum where Reading Randomness is shared there is a very rich guy suggesting that you can treat Baccarat as a business. He needs to be treated to what you are having your turn in life about. People are just discussing it without your special feature of tripe. You are needed.
The founder of this forum, who happens to be rich and who made a lot of money from Roulette, says that Reading Randomness theory is BS and doesn't hold any water.
How about that?
Quote from: winforus on Sep 19, 11:55 AM 2020The founder of this forum, who happens to be rich and who made a lot of money from Roulette, says that Reading Randomness theory is BS and doesn't hold any water.
How about that?
I happen to like Steve and the way he makes a disagreement. I'm also 100% supportive of physics based advantage. Yes the wheels have more scatter now then they did decades ago. I know he thinks it's bullshit. That is clear enough. But Steve is not trying to save the world. You are however very obnoxious, a trait that will stay with you forever. Add to that the consensus is still out on Reading Randomness. Steve's opinion is not the only one that doesn't like it. There happen to be as many that do like it and use it. It's only been a little more than a year since I openly explained it. You are not qualified to judge it based on your fallacies of math. Because if it does work all the so called beliefs about the house's edge are all wrong and have always been wrong. That means that you will have always been wrong.
Talking with you to discuss it is like a full waste of time. You know your are right and I know that I am right. Get over this, move on. You are not accomplishing anything. Like Steve always says. If it works for you then good, use it.
Quote from: gizmotron2 on Sep 19, 12:24 PM 2020
I happen to like Steve and the way he makes a disagreement. I'm also 100% supportive of physics based advantage. Yes the wheels have more scatter now then they did decades ago. I know he thinks it's bullshit. That is clear enough. But Steve is not trying to save the world. You are however very obnoxious, a trait that will stay with you forever. Add to that the consensus is still out on Reading Randomness. Steve's opinion is not the only one that doesn't like it. There happen to be as many that do like it and use it. It's only been a little more than a year since I openly explained it. You are not qualified to judge it based on your fallacies of math. Because if it does work all the so called beliefs about the house's edge are all wrong and have always been wrong. That means that you will have always been wrong.
Talking with you to discuss it is like a full waste of time. You know your are right and I know that I am right. Get over this, move on. You are not accomplishing anything. Like Steve always says. If it works for you then good, use it.
Flubbing #'s like mad. It's not rad.
Quote from: gizmotron2 on Sep 19, 12:24 PM 2020I have a man crush on Steve. Blah Blah Blah. I can't beat roulette
Anyone with half a brain knows Gizmotron's RR doesn't work
I committed troll postery. Nevermind.
Quote from: Moxy on Sep 19, 10:49 AM 2020One foot in...
Nice.
Oh Brother.
Add another tool to the list (of people Moxy calls tools.)
Quote from: pepper on Sep 19, 08:34 PM 2020Anyone with half a brain knows Gizmotron's RR doesn't work
Maybe, ... maybe not. But is does prove that you have half a brain.
Quote from: pepper on Sep 19, 08:40 PM 2020I committed troll postery. Nevermind.
You mean that it's not OK to misquote someone? "I have a man crush on Steve. Blah Blah Blah. I can't beat roulette" I take it that you are proud of your face to the crowd. Would you like to meet in person? I would love to teach you a lesson. I'm sure that I can beat into you the best lesson on things that reoccur.
Quote from: gizmotron2 on Sep 19, 09:29 PM 2020
You mean that it's not OK to misquote someone? "I have a man crush on Steve. Blah Blah Blah. I can't beat roulette" I take it that you are proud of your face to the crowd. Would you like to meet in person? I would love to teach you a lesson. I'm sure that I can beat into you the best lesson on things that reoccur.
Flagged for implied violence.
Quote from: Moxy on Sep 19, 09:55 PM 2020Flagged for implied violence.
Actually it's a comment about music and how repetition in music relates to rhythm.
link:s://:.youtube.com/watch?v=r9b3IUlkNHY
So where is the dependency? LOTT sessions are independent of each other like individual spins. Cycles are independent of each other too.
I've heard people describe dependency on the same spin - but that has nothing to do with future vs. past and cannot be exploited.
We then have a repeat is dependent on the starting unique, which doesn't help either because we don't know when the repeat will come and end up break even and paying tax.
If there were no house limits then it means that a sleeper eventually has to hit. Therefore, if we could wait our entire life for a number to not appear in 500 spins then we are guaranteed to win a dollar within the house limits - but i doubt that's practical or how CHT might have interpreted what the house limits indicates.
Again, I've never been able to find this dependency before, but perhaps we can win without it?
An EC cycle ends up with 50/50 CL1/CL2 or 75% o1.
A Dozen cycle ends up 33/44/22% for CL1/2/3 and also 62% o1.
We could extrapolate both EC+Dozen cycles amalgamated into dual cycles to come out with about 10-20 different outcomes. It would then be possible to go beyond 75% and cover, say, 15/20 outcomes at 90%.
The 90% will require equivalent chips over the long term for a break even risk/reward - but since the outcomes can occur over different amount of spins we may be able to get a cheaper investment for that 90% bet selection?
@cht
Pl don’t leave the forum. Your ideas are good. I am following you since sometime. You are the one â˜ï¸ created the idea of thinking math way of probabilities.
Of course there are Gurus here, but you got more modern way of thinking.
Keep cool bro..
Regards
Allin
Quote from: gizmotron2 on Sep 19, 09:29 PM 2020Would you like to meet in person? I would love to teach you a lesson. I'm sure that I can beat into you the best lesson on things that reoccur.
Do you act embarrassing like this in real life too?
Gizmotron is all talk. He wouldn't lift a hand to me. He's too afraid. The proof is there. If he would really do anything, he wouldn't say so on the open forum first.
Gizmotron is a real hypocrite. He's all against the violence, then immediately touts violence when someone disagrees with him. He can't beat you with real argument and facts, so he has to go after the person.
Quote from: gizmotron2 on Sep 19, 09:22 PM 2020But is does prove that you have half a brain.
If you have more than half a brain, then why can't you even manage to put this sentence together?
Quote from: pepper on Sep 20, 11:13 AM 2020Gizmotron is all talk. He wouldn't lift a hand to me. He's too afraid. The proof is there. If he would really do anything, he wouldn't say so on the open forum first.
How do you know? You are just what you claim that I must be. Some people here know that I'm one of the very first poly extreme athletes in the world. For years I took martial arts too. I'm an older man now but would love to sit there and watch you come to an end. I don't care how. I could pay 20 boy scouts to molest you and then bury you in an ant hill. It's the internet. You have no idea. You have a big mouth and you are threatened by real danger so you pose like this because for some reason you think that all this is reality. I have so much experience in life concerning ultimate realty that you have no idea what you would face if I decided to correct you. But these are just words being exchanged between us and we all know that words can't hurt you. I don't really care much about your characterizations about me. You are a fake human being with no chance of getting anything real in your life any time soon. It's always been the internet for you. The things that scare you are self inflicted.
I'm only talking to you because I like the way that you blow up.
Quote from: gizmotron2 on Sep 20, 06:33 PM 2020How do you know? You are just what you claim that I must be. Some people here know that I'm one of the very first poly extreme athletes in the world. For years I took martial arts too. I'm an older man now but would love to sit there and watch you come to an end. I don't care how. I could pay 20 boy scouts to molest you and then bury you in an ant hill. It's the internet. You have no idea. You have a big mouth and you are threatened by real danger so you pose like this because for some reason you think that all this is reality. I have so much experience in life concerning ultimate realty that you have no idea what you would face if I decided to correct you. But these are just words being exchanged between us and we all know that words can't hurt you. I don't really care much about your characterizations about me. You are a fake human being with no chance of getting anything real in your life any time soon. It's always been the internet for you. The things that scare you are self inflicted.
I'm only talking to you because I like the way that you blow up.
Why do you care so much about what I think? I'm a random stranger online. I know you wouldn't do squat, because if you would hurt me, a random stranger online that has hardly said anything offensive to you (only after you insulted me several times w/o reason), what do you do to people in real life that offend you? Nothing. You talk the talk, but don't walk the walk.
In real life, you would never have insulted me for no reason before when I have said nothing offensive to you. Since you continued to be extremely rude and even dared me to insult you, then I started to.
blah blah blah -- sisk boom bah, be true to your school.
Quote
In real life,..
yeah, right.
So, you're a tough guy that might be able to beat me up. What's that prove? There's always someone stronger than you, and anyone can dedicate themselves to learn something like mixed martial arts and kick the crap out of you too.
Quote from: pepper on Sep 21, 08:42 AM 2020So, you're a tough guy that might be able to beat me up. What's that prove? There's always someone stronger than you, and anyone can dedicate themselves to learn something like mixed martial arts and kick the crap out of you too.
When you lie and misquote me, make assumptions and generally pose as the guy that is going to finish me off with your gambling experience that tends to lack validation or experience yourself then I figure that meeting in person might be interesting in watching you wet yourself. This is not about me meeting someone that can finish me off. This is about you and your personality disorder. You have a savior complex at least. You think you know everything about Reading Randomness but don't actually need to find out for yourself if it really works for you or not. Yet you frequent a gambling forum in search of anything that might work. RR is free and there is practice software so that nobody needs to go into a casino and waste a dime on finding out if it does work or not for them. Nobody cares if you are right or wrong. These people are not your life long friends. This forum is for sharing information. You have turned it into your command post. Do you ever just stop and listen to yourself or do you already have all the answers and can't hear what others are saying? That voice inside your head is masking information because you think that you don't need to hear it. The good part is this is your personality and you do this to everyone that you have made your mind up on. You are shallow. Your life will always be a regurgitation of what you think is already known. In fact you can't hear me now. I don't know why I'm wasting my time. Don't forget to polish your Spandex.
MMA is is crap. It's more like kickboxing with some grappling. True martial arts is kung fu and krav maga.
Quote from: Steve on Sep 21, 06:59 PM 2020True martial arts is kung fu and krav maga.
Right again. But I would also add Jeet Kune Do to this.
krav maga is crap.
kung fu is crap.
Everything in self defence hinges on one clean hard throat punch. If you can't do that then run away at a great rate.
When you do run away and your assailant is catching up or you're letting him catch you up, be mindful you can always spin around for one clean hard throat punch. :thumbsup:
MMA is a professional sport with a strict set of rules and a governing ruling body. Krav Maga is for military life and death situations.
You put an average skilled Krav Maga guy in the cage with an average skilled MMA proponent and Krav Maga is going DOWN.
nah bruh..
No matter how experienced you are in martial arts, an unexpected punch is an unexpected punch. That would have its place.
When you are ready for an opponent in the ring, MMA is a typical stand-off approach. You are ready. But it is one-dimensional, and you can rush the opponent and even tackle them. Because they're not expecting it. MMA I've fought are always forward-focused like kickboxers and very predictable. And ninjutsu is super-gay with all the weird positions.
But if you have say kung fu vs mma in a ring, they can look much the same when both in a stand-off. Until one breaks style, then the other must adjust.
Kung fu is overall the best in most circumstances. Krav Maga is more for a FFA street fight.
Yeah, righto.
So where does this debate end?....I suppose it ends at don't bother bringing a knife to a gun fight.
Or, don't bring a gun to a knife fight if those are the rules of engagement.
Why are they talking about these fighting bullshit?
This topic is about CHT and her way of seeing the game, do not disturb!
If you want to fight, stay in one place and fight like fools, but please do not disturb!
There are people who want to learn to see what Mr. CHT refers to, continue sir !!! Thank you!!!
Quote from: Steve on Sep 22, 02:48 AM 2020
nah bruh..
No matter how experienced you are in martial arts, an unexpected punch is an unexpected punch. That would have its place.
When you are ready for an opponent in the ring, MMA is a typical stand-off approach. You are ready. But it is one-dimensional, and you can rush the opponent and even tackle them. Because they're not expecting it. MMA I've fought are always forward-focused like kickboxers and very predictable. And ninjutsu is super-gay with all the weird positions.
But if you have say kung fu vs mma in a ring, they can look much the same when both in a stand-off. Until one breaks style, then the other must adjust.
Kung fu is overall the best in most circumstances. Krav Maga is more for a FFA street fight.
It’s clear you guys have never been choked unconscious .
Quote from: Winner on Sep 22, 09:11 AM 2020It’s clear you guys have never been choked unconscious .
I have. I was professionally trained in the military choke hold that required having it used on me. That is why I come off at times sounding dead.
This is my street fight tactic. All street fights are to the death. They occur because the bad guy thinks you are a weak target. So a wing chun blast (Kung Fu) is followed with a taekwondo tactic of sending the jerk on his back to the ground through a momentum of tripping the poor idiot and hitting him with a body blow at the same time. That technique is reinforced by a Jeet Kune Do method that improves it. While he is falling backwards you strike with a downward side kick to his throat just as his head hits the ground. He is then dead. It all comes down to using such force that is deemed necessary. If you get knocked out you don't know what will happen to you so it's self defense. There are other tactics too. But I like disorienting the opponent first.
Quote from: game over on Sep 22, 08:39 AM 2020Why are they talking about these fighting bullshit?
This topic is about CHT and her way of seeing the game,
Dead from fighting, dead from gambling? It's all the same.
Quote from: gizmotron2 on Sep 22, 09:44 AM 2020
I have. I was professionally trained in the military choke hold that required having it used on me. That is why I come off at times sounding dead.
This is my street fight tactic. All street fights are to the death. They occur because the bad guy thinks you are a weak target. So a wing chun blast (Kung Fu) is followed with a taekwondo tactic of sending the jerk on his back to the ground through a momentum of tripping the poor idiot and hitting him with a body blow at the same time. That technique is reinforced by a Jeet Kune Do method that improves it. While he is falling backwards you strike with a downward side kick to his throat just as his head hits the ground. He is then dead. It all comes down to using such force that is deemed necessary. If you get knocked out you don't know what will happen to you so it's self defense. There are other tactics too. But I like disorienting the opponent first.
It’s not that easy.
Quote from: Winner on Sep 22, 09:56 AM 2020It’s not that easy.
It's this easy:
link:s://:.youtube.com/watch?v=aqn6cy3jB0k
Quote from: gizmotron2 on Sep 22, 10:19 AM 2020
It's this easy:
link:s://:.youtube.com/watch?v=aqn6cy3jB0k
It’s called training every day knowing is not enough.
And that guy is fake martial artist there’s lots of those .
I’m well educated on this subject and a coach for the last 29 years
Quote from: Winner on Sep 22, 10:28 AM 2020And that guy is fake martial artist there’s lots of those .
I’m well educated on this subject and a coach for the last 29 years
funny. 29 years.
link:s://:.youtube.com/watch?v=5By9THjB32Q
Quote from: gizmotron2 on Sep 22, 10:34 AM 2020
funny. 29 years.
link:s://:.youtube.com/watch?v=5By9THjB32Q
[/quote
Im A Bruce lee fan he was way a head of his time . Today with all the weapons it’s best to avoid any stree fight .i
You can train wrong your whole life:
link:s://:.youtube.com/watch?v=kstwNFS1Xbs
Quote
Today with all the weapons it’s best to avoid any street fight.
It is best to not put yourself in the position of being a victim.
Taewondo is shit. It's almost all kicking.
Sparring (kumite) is for basics. Real fighting is quite different.
Most martial arts classes are non-contact, so you end up punching a lot of air. And you reach a point where you can't improve more, besides with speed. The taekwondo guy explains that too.
That video about mistakes.. should be MISTAKE #1, PLAY FIGHTING NEXT TO WINDOW OF TALL BUILDING. Otherwise very good tips.
Quote from: Steve on Sep 22, 08:38 PM 2020Taewondo[sp] is shit. It's almost all kicking.
It is. It was my first style. And I love the kicking techniques of Kung Fu also. They serve a different purpose. Because of Taekwondo I know that that kick in combat to a grounded man in the throat would kill him. I'm not concerned at all that it's shit. It works. There are two ways to increase the effect of a strike. The Taekwondo way is the alignment of the bone structure of your body at and through impact. The other way is the way of Jeet Kune Do. You know that secret?
Quote from: Joe on Oct 19, 06:34 AM 2020
cht, while I'm all in favour of the maths vids you're posting and urging members to understand the maths, your posts are still contradicting it because you're continuing to insist that there is a way out; a 'loophole' in the game which means that spins aren't independent after all. What use is it to understand the maths when you do this? It means that the maths doesn't have the final say after all. Other members will be thinking : 'well if cht has found a loophole then maybe I can find it too (or another one), therefore the maths doesn't really apply and I might as well ignore it.'
Do you agree?
Joe, I am caught in a difficult position.
I believe you understand what I mean.
I can't code in rx.
I can code on excel.
But my knowledge is limited therefore I am challenged to write the complete code to test a statistical significant population.
I have no intention to engage a coder.
Last few weeks I have worked hard to extend the excel code in small parts.
Today I realise I have manage to complete enough of the code to know excel testing is possible.
I will still have to write the rest of the code which takes time. There is still a lot of coding to be done.
I am not an expert. The process of translating rules into excel code is challenging for me.
Joe, when I completed this excel code and testing I am in the position to respond properly to your post with the result.
This time with proper proof.
If I don't respond in the future, then the excel code testing has proven that I was wrong with my small sample test.
I only trust you, because you understand math.
You can guide me towards proper statistical testing as per the math. I hope you can contribute towards this process. Thank you.
***if anyone has this question why I want to write excel code to test, post on forums.
Answer - To address directly this statement posted on all forums with proof.
The math of random roulette spins that is independent and unbiased.
There is no possibility of prediction.
There is no possibility of positive edge.
Systems betting cannot win. My signature below stays until I can produce the proof. Till then
Quote from: Joe on Oct 19, 06:34 AM 2020
cht, while I'm all in favour of the maths vids you're posting and urging members to understand the maths, your posts are still contradicting it because you're continuing to insist that there is a way out; a 'loophole' in the game which means that spins aren't independent after all. What use is it to understand the maths when you do this? It means that the maths doesn't have the final say after all. Other members will be thinking : 'well if cht has found a loophole then maybe I can find it too (or another one), therefore the maths doesn't really apply and I might as well ignore it.'
Do you agree?
I have completed the excel code to test large sample.
It has 150 columns of complex math codes for each row of data so the file is enormous.
I use your 50,000 spin2.text file data posted on this thread.
link:s://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=26763.30
The result is shown on the attached chart.
The result speaks for itself.
I have nothing more to post on this forum.
cht, so that's 12,368 bets, but can you give me more details?
- Coverage (how many numbers bet per spin?
- How many wins in total?
Then I can give you a better assessment of how likely it is that your results are due to luck. :thumbsup:
Quote from: Joe on Oct 23, 07:18 AM 2020
cht, so that's 12,368 bets, but can you give me more details?
- Coverage (how many numbers bet per spin?
- How many wins in total?
Then I can give you a better assessment of how likely it is that your results are due to luck. :thumbsup:
Coverage - 14numbers(average)
total wins - 5265
Hi CHT,
thank you very much for all those infos you gave us here.
Alle the best to you.
Good luck then
(outside roulette)
z
Quote from: Joe on Oct 23, 07:18 AM 2020
cht, so that's 12,368 bets, but can you give me more details?
- Coverage (how many numbers bet per spin?
- How many wins in total?
Then I can give you a better assessment of how likely it is that your results are due to luck. :thumbsup:
Joe I tested using your other 2 RNG spin data.
1. 5328 wins
2. 5404 wins
All 3 tests combined,
Total win - 5265+5328+5404 = 15997 wins
Total bets - 12368+12783+12617 = 37768 bets
*** I wrote this post to explain my opinion about RNG
link:s://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=27425.msg244785#msg244785
Quote from: cht on Sep 14, 11:41 AM 2020Random does not make your systems bet .... win itlr.
To support your opinion you show us 3 RNG longterm winning diagrams ?
Maybe it's not my day today :question:
Quote from: cht on Oct 23, 11:49 PM 2020Total win - 5265+5328+5404 = 15997 wins
Total bets - 12368+12783+12617 = 37768 bets
Ok, so theoretically if betting 14 numbers your win rate should be 14/37 = 0.3784. Your sample gives a win rate of 15997/37768 = 0.4236. This is quite a large sample so the margin for error is quite small (the error comes from using the AVERAGE of 14 numbers bet).
This is 18 standard deviations above the mean. :o
Results of proportion test :
Null hypothesis: population proportion = 0.3784
Sample size: n = 37768
Sample proportion = 0.4236
Test statistic: z = (0.4236 - 0.3784)/0.00249557 = 18.1121
Two-tailed p-value = 2.557e-73
(one-tailed = 1.278e-73)(link:s://img.techpowerup.org/201024/chtresults.png)
There's no way this could be the result of chance, so either the figures are wrong (you've made a mistake), you really do have a consistent winning system, or it's a hoax. I'll let the readers decide. :)
Quote from: Joe on Oct 24, 04:37 AM 2020
Ok, so theoretically if betting 14 numbers your win rate should be 14/37 = 0.3784. Your sample gives a win rate of 15997/37768 = 0.4236. This is quite a large sample so the margin for error is quite small (the error comes from using the AVERAGE of 14 numbers bet).
This is 18 standard deviations above the mean. :o
Results of proportion test :
Null hypothesis: population proportion = 0.3784
Sample size: n = 37768
Sample proportion = 0.4236
Test statistic: z = (0.4236 - 0.3784)/0.00249557 = 18.1121
Two-tailed p-value = 2.557e-73
(one-tailed = 1.278e-73)
(link:s://img.techpowerup.org/201024/chtresults.png)
There's no way this could be the result of chance, so either the figures are wrong (you've made a mistake), you really do have a consistent winning system, or it's a hoax. I'll let the readers decide. :)
Thanks Joe.
Readers must not discount the possibility that these graphs are complete fakes.
What would your edge be assuming these figures are correct?
The total outlay is 37768 * 14 = 528752 units
Profit per win is 35 - 13 = 22 units, giving a total profit of 15997 * 22 = 351934 units
losses are (37768 - 15997) * 14 = 304794 units
So net profit is 351934 - 304794 = 47140 units
So the yield on outlay (edge) is 47140/528752 = 0.0892, or about 9%.
Wouldn't that be lovely. ;D
Quote from: Joe on Oct 24, 07:31 AM 2020
What would your edge be assuming these figures are correct?
The total outlay is 37768 * 14 = 528752 units
Profit per win is 35 - 13 = 22 units, giving a total profit of 15997 * 22 = 351934 units
losses are (37768 - 15997) * 14 = 304794 units
So net profit is 351934 - 304794 = 47140 units
So the yield on outlay (edge) is 47140/528752 = 0.0892, or about 9%.
Wouldn't that be lovely. ;D
Yes it would be lovely. Shame we have nothing but cht's claim.
Joe I have seen you in this forum and others calculating stand deviations on systems. Have you found anything worth telling us about them?