Maestro and ignatus

[nottophammer]

so knowing this is a waste of time


up to 19th take on avg 2 spins, it happens, the above happens as in the other reply.

[Steve]

Ignatus, i just saw your responses. Ill give full details soon.

I've explained it many other times before too. Its not opinion. Its not ego. Its just reality. I didn't make the rules.

Ps regarding parxonline, could you profit if every day the casino gave you thousand of dollars for clicking a button? obvious answer.

If you are interested in the truth i can help. But you need to forget an old way of thinking.

[ignatus]

Ignatus, i just saw your responses. Ill give full details soon.

Alright thanks. Looking forward to your answer.

[nottophammer]

Alright thanks. Looking forward to your answer.

You'll get nothing, plug away with what you do, you'll find away to read the game. Said before starts with non-hit, then the 1x's start to get in the mix,listen to Winkel learn the trot.

[Steve]

Thanks Steve, well, the only thing I know, IS that numbers always hit in clusters on the wheel

Exactly how do you know this?

Question is how to catch these numbers hit in clusters

If you tell me more about what you mean, I can tell you if it's a valid theory or not. I keep saying its not my "opinion". Its just what is.

some bet hotnumbers/repeaters, others wheel-neighbours too

The whole concept of "repeaters" that I've seen discussed on forums is nonsense. You can not know which numbers might repeat with any change in odds. Like the law of a third. Test tonnes of spins and see if you can know WHICH numbers repeat with better than 1 in 37 odds. Thre law of a third and repeaters is pure gamblers fallacy.

another way is chosing the right amount to bet, if you run a test in RX for an example you see a straight downtrend if betting 10 or more numbers....and 2-4 numbers the chart usually have an uptrend, (atleast for a certain time)....well, that's pretty much all i know (for sure?)

Generally the fewer numbers you bet, the higher your possible edge. But it really depends on the method you are using. For example with ballistic methods like roulette computers, the optimal edge is either 1-3 numbers. BUT the edge is not everything. What matetrs most is profit per hour, and on most wheels it is around 15 numbers. Rarely can you have time to bet that many with something like roulette computers, but you dont need that many numbers anyway.

With bias analysis, the best amount of numbers depends on how many numbers are biased.

With methods like law of a third, it makes NO DIFFERENCE AT ALL. Because the approach does not change the odds. For each individual number, the odds are still 1 in 37. So what have you changed? Absolutely nothing, except the amount you lose over the long term (because the more you bet, the more you lose). So you can bet 1 number or 18 numbers, it doesnt matter. If you bet 18 numbers, thats the same as 18 different people each betting one number.

Alright, but then you have your theory of "dominant diamonds"? you can predict that a cluster will be formed.... cluster-theory, is the only wheel-theory i know,....  ofcourse i've seen these cluster formed, then the clusters change position etc....it's a shifting target

Dominant diamonds are not a theory. They are a plain fact anyone can see. Dominant diamonds dont change so quickly unless the wheel is re-calibrated. If you see them change, then this is simply variance over the short term. If you checked a wheel for 30 or so spins on one direction, then compared the spins of an extra 30 or so spins, you'll find the dominant diamond will almost certainly be the same.

Dominant diamonds has nothing to do with cluster theory. I think you are referring to "streaks". Like the expectation that you'll never get 37 different numbers in 37 spins. Because actually you will if you see enough spins. Like you might never see the sequence of spins 0,1,2,3,4,5 but you have probably never seen this either: 32,1,19,2,0,9,19. Each sequence will happen the same amount of times over the long term. The wheel doesnt give a crap what sequence makes sense in your mind. The winning numbers are what they are because of cause and effect, and not some pattern made up in your mind.

I really want an explanation, if you're saying im thinking at the wrong lines, hotnumbers and clusters hit on the wheel doesn't matter at all?? :/

I explained it above. There are circumstances where "clusters" may be legitimate patterns. But for the vast majority of spins, the clusters are meaningless. The winning number is an EFFECT of the CAUSES. If you want to predict roulette spins and change the odds, then analyze a combination of both the effects and the causes (the winning numbers AND the conditions that caused the winning numbers.

Sure as hell it matters. 15 number you can bet 2 times then it's a drawdown. I wouldn't call that "increase the accuracy".

When your odds of winning havent changed for each individual number, changing the amount of numbers you bet, or the  size of units, will only change the amount you lose over the long term.

So much of what happens in roulette is an illusion. But the science behind it all is actually really simple.

"A number can't appear 2 times unless it's shown once. A number can't appear 3 times unless it's shown twice. A number can't appear 4 times unless it's shown 3 times, etc--This leaves readers with one possible path to work on -Repeaters. Any repeater has the potential to be a hot number thus profit. Any cold number / sleeper has the potential to be a long term sleepers / cold number and should be avoided at all cost." ~TG

Utter BS. That approach is completely wrong. It does not change the odds of winning on each individual number. It is a "0" in the equation. When there is a 0 anywhere in the equation with multiplication, then NOTHING HAS CHANGED.
For example: 34 x 343 x 64 x456364 x 0 = ZERO

TG is misleading people about his approaches and parxonline. Parx starts off by giving you loads of free credits. To work your way up the ladder, all you need to do is play more than other people, but not too much. Even if you lose, you get free credits the next day. But generally the more you play, the higher up the ladder you get.

It's like a casino that gives you free money every day, whether you win or lose. This means you are guaranteed to profit. TG would know this, and is misleading people.

You'll get nothing, plug away with what you do, you'll find away to read the game. Said before starts with non-hit, then the 1x's start to get in the mix,listen to Winkel learn the trot

I;ve played roulette twice now and read a good website about roulette. I know my stuff.

Actually I havent seen any information to back up claims winkel has anything of substance. Its nothing personal. I'd like to be proven wrong.

I'm not a "math boy". I'm an "I understand basic logic" boy.

[Madi]

@steve

I run two cycle of 37 spin and see every time couple of number move from 4s to 5s. Say max 5 number. I can see the fact. Can you explain plz where is the falacy?

[maestro]

Can you explain plz where is the falacy?

i would love to learn too..

[Steve]

I run two cycle of 37 spin and see every time couple of number move from 4s to 5s. Say max 5 number. I can see the fact. Can you explain plz where is the falacy?

You can consider cycles of 10, 20, 37 spins or whatever. The odds any number spinning next is still 1 in 37. And the payout for single numbers is still 35-1.

You could see how many times a number has hit in the past 100 spins. Or a number might have won twice in a row. It doesnt matter. The odds of any number spinning next is STILL 1 IN 37.

You could look at what numbers have repeated in a 37 spin cycle (the hot numbers) and bet on them. But it makes sweet FA difference because the odds of each of those numbers spinning on the next spin is still 1 in 37.

Thinking otherwise is the fallacy.

Again this is not my opinion. It is not me trying to sell roulette computers. It is just plain old reality.

I even released free software for people to test for themselves. It was to save people from going in circles.

A recent thread here is about fractals. Whether or not it is valid theory to change the odds (increase accuracy of predictions) is yet to be seen. By at least it appears to the the road less traveled.

[Steve]

I run two cycle of 37 spin and see every time couple of number move from 4s to 5s. Say max 5 number

I can see that you hold onto what you see and say "it's just fact". But you are not considering the rest of the story. Keep in mind that:

1. Any combination of numbers to spin in a row will happen just as much as any other combination.

2. Eventually it's inevitable that some numbers will repeat. After the first spin, there's a 1 in 37 chance that the same number will spin again. Then after 2 numbers appeared, there would be a 2 in 37 chance that one would repeat, then 3 in 37 etc. So eventually sure there will be repeats. It is meaningless and just basic statistics.

A statistician would think the idea of using repeaters is ridiculous.

Anyone that says they can beat a math game with math and repeaters has no clue what they are saying. It is just like saying "I can change the odds without changing the odds by using the science that proves you can't change the odds, by using perfectly normal and expected statistical behavior that in no way changes the odds". It's a really twisted thing to say.

[ignatus]

It doesnt matter. The odds of any number spinning next is STILL 1 IN 37.

I know this can't be true. The ODDS are the same yes, but the *probability* is not the same. Thing is you're bashing everything we know to be true, what we're been struggling for, for many years, and *still you don't give any clues of any other solution*...what your "top secret" method is, i look at THE WHEEL and it outcomes, and you can't deny the fact that numbers will ALWAYS hit in clusters, and that certain numbers will ALWAYS repeat...

[Steve]

I know this can't be true. The ODDS are the same yes, but the *probability* is not the same.

Odds and probability are exactly the same thing.

Thing is you're bashing everything we know to be true

I'm not bashing anything. I'm just explaining irrefutable facts. Again this is not my opinion. If you dont believe me, then like i said, do loads of testing with whatever "bet selection" algorithm you want. Test a statically relevant amount of spins. 30 or so spins tells you nothing in this type of testing. You will find the odds of one number spinning next is still 1 in 37. This is my point. Dont debate it further, just test.

When you see the odds/probability hasn't changed, think if you havent changed the odds/probability, and the payout is still only 35-1, then what have you changed?? You have changed nothing at all.

*still you don't give any clues of any other solution*

What do you mean? I have given it in plain english many times.

I have developed a few different ways to predict roulette spins. The logic behind roulette computers is easy to understand. But maybe you're referring to my other method I call "cross referencing". This is not a mystery. I've explained it many times before. I use all significant data to correlate it to all data. I cross reference the data to what's significant, whats insignificant etc. And the analysis uncovers anomalies that can be used to increase accuracy of predictions.

My system is not a "system" like other gambling systems. It is a type of statistical analysis.

An example of cross referencing with traditional AP is like with bias analysis. You might check bias over 5000 spins by looking only at the winning numbers. You might not find a bias. But then separate the spins into different directions. Also separate them into type of ball, and rotor speed, and so on. This is called "data segregation". And when you get more specific data, you uncover things you would have easily missed. Another way of looking at is detailed information is more useful than vague information.

There's nothing special about segregation. My cross reference method models the relationship between all the variables and winning numbers to create a dynamic model. So when conditions and variables change, winning numbers can be predicted - at least with a slight increase in accuracy.

I will not reveal exactly how the cross referencing works. But I will explain it uses permutations. A typical analysis of 300 spins is about 4 billion permutations.

I've actually explained it many times. It is not some big mystery of hocus pocus. It is plain simple logic, science and math.

you can't deny that numbers will ALWAYS hit in clusters, and that certain numbers will ALWAYS repeat

You have missed my point again.

Numbers will "probably" repeat. But so what? Can you know WHICH will repeat with better than 1 in 37 accuracy? NO, YOU CANT.

So like I said, you havent changed the odds. Haven't changed the probability. The payouts are still the same. So you've actually changed NOTHING.

Everyone needs to start looking at roulette for what it actually is - a wheel and ball. The winning number is an effect. Start looking at cause and effect.

[ignatus]

My system is not a "system" like other gambling systems. It is a type of statistical analysis.

An example of cross referencing with traditional AP is like with bias analysis. You might check bias over 5000 spins by looking only at the winning numbers. My cross reference method models the relationship between all the variables and winning numbers to create a dynamic model.winning numbers can be predicted - at least with a slight increase in accuracy.

OK thanks for your reply, now i understand you better. You use statistics, you're looking for hot-numbers/hot-sectors, yes... but you don't call them "hot numbers", you call then "winning numbers"ok

[Steve]

you're looking for hot-numbers/hot-sectors, yes... but you don't call them "hot numbers", you call then "winning numbers"ok

NO, NOT AT ALL.

Also, the only time playing "hot sectors" is valid is when there is a bias (ie from a physical defect). But you cant determine bias from just the past few spins. Not even 100 spins. The bare minimum is about 400 spins and that would requite a large sector bias like half the wheel. That kind of bias comes from a rotor wobble.

[nottophammer]

after all that how you changed the odds, payout still the same.

[MumboJumbo]

Steve is right notto you can not doit this way. Try to beat Steves mpr game it has many biasis.