• Welcome to #1 Roulette Forum & Message Board | www.RouletteForum.cc.

News:

WARNING: Forums often contain bad advice & systems that aren't properly tested. Do NOT believe everything. Read these links: The Facts About What Works & Why | How To Proplerly Test Systems | The Top 5 Proven Systems | Best Honest Online Casinos

Main Menu
Popular pages:

Roulette System

The Roulette Systems That Really Work

Roulette Computers

Hidden Electronics That Predict Spins

Roulette Strategy

Why Roulette Betting Strategies Lose

Roulette System

The Honest Live Online Roulette Casinos

Lets try again

Started by rrbb, Jun 18, 05:33 AM 2017

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

rrbb

Long time ago i proposed the following thought experiment (disguised as a question).

Lets assume someone claims how to win consistently within roulette.

Now this person plays roulette while you are watching.

You just watch, nothing else.

You see this person placing bets, winning some, loosing some. But overall her bankroll is increasing. You can't believe what you are seeing.

so you decide to focus on one specific possible bet, say, a bet on zero (0) with 1 unit (lets call this a constant bet: the same unit on the same straight over and over again). Whenever 1 unit is placed on zero, it does not matter that more units are on the table at the same time, you track the results.

What would you expect to see?

As the spins are random: a constant bet is a loosing bet. Randomness implies that the spin results are independent of the past results. This clearly holds for straigths.

But every combination of bets can be seen as a combination of constant bets!

So there is no way this person can have a consistent winner... ???

Unless, unless, she came up with a way to make the spin results dependent on past results :o

For straights etc this not possible: no prediction is possible. We do not know what to bet when.

So either we come up with a completely new interpretation of what events to bet on, or we are stuck...





rrbb

So the question of roulette basically drills down to:

can we redefine roulette in such a way that we introduce dependencies?

And if so: what do we actually bet on? On something we think that will happen?

Or on nothing at all, we just place bets, knowing that we will win.




praline

Quote from: rrbb on Jun 18, 05:50 AM 2017can we redefine roulette in such a way that we introduce dependencies?

And if so: what do we actually bet on? On something we think that will happen?

We introduce dependency by starting a new cycle with last closing element. So actually we bet for an event, and this event will surely happen  100%.
I don't have TheHolyGrail.

rrbb

This is one example indeed. The problem being however that we know to bet what, but not when.

why not try to think about a method where we do NOT bet on an event. Sure, we use cycles as defined like you did, but instead of waiting for it to happen, why not try to go with the flow within a cycle? Like the tides...

Just asking

Herby

The flow is not constant.
It's built up from waves,bigger and smaller which sum up.
Almost no 2 waves are the same, because of the own dynamics  of  the smaller and bigger waves.

3Nine

I always loved the saying, all ships rise with the tide.  Thanks for the visual. 

Happy Father's Day to you and all Dad's here!
Do I turn the wheel,
or does the wheel turn me?

Herby

Quote from: 3Nine on Jun 18, 06:38 AM 2017
all ships rise with the tide

Titanic maybe not; for the visual  :ooh:

3Nine

Quote from: Herby on Jun 18, 06:51 AM 2017
Titanic maybe not; for the visual  :ooh:

Ha, yes, my methods all perform that way!   Herein lies the problem with metaphors... always an exception.
Do I turn the wheel,
or does the wheel turn me?

rrbb

Yes indeed, happy fathersday!

So although praline's statement is not untrue, the question is how to utilize it. And before you know it, you have a system that waits for a repeat.

But as Herby indicated: a lot is happening in, and inbetween cycles.

It is very difficult to grasp, not betting on events. All, yes all systems discussed on this forum are about betting on events. Some really stupid systems, some very sophisticated, but all, all  loose. Why? Think about the thought experiment.

If there is a method, it MUST use the fact that there are indeed dependencies. This is the only loophole out to avoid the law of large numbers.

But it must be a fragile method: at the moment one tries to predict an event, it collapses onto the law of large numbers again.

So to complicate things: how to NOT bet on events? What is the alternative??

Please note: using random is just a way to bet on events (the randomly generated numbers are the new predictions). So if such a method exists, it needs to be a little bit more sophisticated

3Nine

Would NOT betting on events be an event itself? Just a thought.
Do I turn the wheel,
or does the wheel turn me?

Herby

Quote from: rrbb on Jun 18, 07:03 AM 2017
So to complicate things: how to NOT bet on events? What is the alternative??
Bet on the Anti event.

3Nine

Quote from: Herby on Jun 18, 07:38 AM 2017
Bet on the Anti event.

As in the complimentary set??
Do I turn the wheel,
or does the wheel turn me?

Herby

As Priyanka showed in some of her films.
I don't rember which one, but I found the idea interesting.

Nickmsi

Why wait for an event?

Use a Non Random system, like VDW, where past spins are dependent.



Don't give up . . . . .Don't ever give up.

MoneyT101

Quote from: rrbb on Jun 18, 07:03 AM 2017
Yes indeed, happy fathersday!

So although praline's statement is not untrue, the question is how to utilize it. And before you know it, you have a system that waits for a repeat.

But as Herby indicated: a lot is happening in, and inbetween cycles.

It is very difficult to grasp, not betting on events. All, yes all systems discussed on this forum are about betting on events. Some really stupid systems, some very sophisticated, but all, all  loose. Why? Think about the thought experiment.

If there is a method, it MUST use the fact that there are indeed dependencies. This is the only loophole out to avoid the law of large numbers.

But it must be a fragile method: at the moment one tries to predict an event, it collapses onto the law of large numbers again.

So to complicate things: how to NOT bet on events? What is the alternative??

Please note: using random is just a way to bet on events (the randomly generated numbers are the new predictions). So if such a method exists, it needs to be a little bit more sophisticated

Happy Fathers Day Everyone!!!

ok we know that cycles create a small dependence...As you posted in the holy grail thread; after the repeat the partition has a very small tendency for the opposite.  But the repeat seems to be the same. 

The problem with that is that we dont know when the repeats will come exactly.

Unique numbers might be better but the problem with that is more numbers to be played and early repeat...
Simple once you get it!  Chased all the pigeons away and they were already in their hole

-