• 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

define, hot number, once and for all

Started by nottophammer, Nov 14, 03:47 AM 2017

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Andre Chass

Quote from: Steve on Nov 17, 11:35 PM 2017
Anyone can use the free software i published, or at any similar software to see for themselves. I have a version that looks for every possible combination or set principle.

You say you don't believe in statistics, that past spins do not affect future spins and that bets are independent of each other.
But you contradict yourself  saying that you use a software that looks for every possible combination.
Could you explain me?

Nothing ventured, nothing gained...

Roulettebeater

Andre,

"Past spins dont affect future spins" is a mathematical or better say a probability assumption and not a statistical assumption.

i hope you understand what i mean
A dollar won is twice as sweet as as a dollar earned

Andre Chass

Quote from: Roulettebeater on Nov 18, 09:11 AM 2017
Andre,

"Past spins dont affect future spins" is a mathematical or better say a probability assumption and not a statistical assumption.

i hope you understand what i mean

Yes I know, but you mixed what I said. I said:1- he doesn't believe in statistics. 2- he doesn't believe that past spins affected future spins. 3- bets are independente of each other.
Nothing ventured, nothing gained...

Roulettebeater

Quote from: Andre Chass on Nov 18, 09:25 AM 2017
Yes I know, but you mixed what I said. I said:1- he doesn't believe in statistics. 2- he doesn't believe that past spins affected future spins. 3- bets are independente of each other.

i dont think steve doesn't believe in statistics.
A dollar won is twice as sweet as as a dollar earned

Steve

Quote from: Andre Chass on Nov 18, 08:47 AM 2017
Steve, I'm curious!

You say there are many ways to beat roulette other than through software, VB, computers or bias. What are these ways?

See the "Outside the box" area. Coming up with new ideas is why i added that area. The sticky thread  has  approaches i suggest investigating, which habe nothing to do with traditional AP. Im sure there are more others can think of which aren't the same nonsense repackaged.
"The only way to beat roulette is by increasing the accuracy of predictions"
Roulettephysics.com â† Professional roulette tips
Roulette-computers.com â† Hidden electronics that predicts the winning number
Roulettephysics.com/roulette-strategy â† Why most systems lose

Steve

Quote from: Andre Chass on Nov 18, 08:57 AM 2017
You say you don't believe in statistics, that past spins do not affect future spins and that bets are independent of each other.
But you contradict yourself  saying that you use a software that looks for every possible combination.
Could you explain me?

No i never said i didn't believe in statistics. Statistics is reality but most players don't even understand basics, and use it incorrectly.

The average understanding is actually about junior high school, its that bad. Most players won't even do basic proper testing.

I have software that looks for anomalies in data. It does a lot of different things. In the case of hot numbers, they have no bearing on future spins unless there is physical bias. That includes individual spins or groups of spins.
"The only way to beat roulette is by increasing the accuracy of predictions"
Roulettephysics.com â† Professional roulette tips
Roulette-computers.com â† Hidden electronics that predicts the winning number
Roulettephysics.com/roulette-strategy â† Why most systems lose

Steve

Turbo i explained the parx math in detail. Caleb even reposted it. I guess you don't understand it. Anyone could have achieved the same results as you with random bets. As per the math, it just takes playing the optimimum amount of spins with progression.

If you play too little you won't rank well. Play too much and you'll lose your bankroll. Play just right and you'll have virtually guaranteed profits.

Again i already explained the math.  its not a matter of opinion. Real casinos don't pay huge fake cash prizes which can then be used to win more fake cash prizes and rank high. Dont tell me winnings aren't included in stats. You didn't win \$7m from \$1000. You won \$7m by increasing bet size after huge fake cash prizes. Getting the first fake cash prize is easily achieved.

"The only way to beat roulette is by increasing the accuracy of predictions"
Roulettephysics.com â† Professional roulette tips
Roulette-computers.com â† Hidden electronics that predicts the winning number
Roulettephysics.com/roulette-strategy â† Why most systems lose

TurboGenius

Quote from: Steve on Nov 19, 12:55 AM 2017Turbo i explained the parx math in detail. Caleb even reposted it. I guess you don't understand it. Anyone could have achieved the same results as you with random bets. As per the math, it just takes playing the optimimum amount of spins with progression.

If you play too little you won't rank well. Play too much and you'll lose your bankroll. Play just right and you'll have virtually guaranteed profits.

Again i already explained the math.  its not a matter of opinion. Real casinos don't pay huge fake cash prizes which can then be used to win more fake cash prizes and rank high. Dont tell me winnings aren't included in stats. You didn't win \$7m from \$1000. You won \$7m by increasing bet size after huge fake cash prizes. Getting the first fake cash prize is easily achieved.

This is all nonsense you know. But nothing is going to change your mind.
I played my system yesterday for 300 spins at Parx and manually put all spins into RX at the same time - then used the RNG in RX for 300 spins and then grabbed 300 spins from Random.org. Guess what - exact same results from all 3. RX gives analysis in great detail and not once was there some issue with any of those 3 being "rigged".
I played a \$10.00 min table with \$100.00 max bet there (insane limits, but I can work with it).
Currently for the week in 6th with 109k profit (just profit - none of that includes whatever they gave me for logging in daily - which represents a bankroll you would bring to the casino). So 6th for me - no other roulette players in the top 10. The next roulette player is in 12th place and 17th place. Odd though Steve since everyone wins.
Or will you use Bago's thoughts that it's rigged "just for me" and no one else ?
You can say all day that's it rigged, or that everyone wins - it's not the case. I've recorded the spins and put them in RX - no problems with the spins and it's been proven to be nothing more than random. If they gave me a million bonus credits - I'd still be in 6th place.
No, I couldn't make HUGE bets and shoot up the leader board as you said - there are table limits, in this case 10-100 per number.
And not a single nay-sayer has the time to go there and easily rank in first ? Nope.
Then you'd see that it's realistic and not rigged - you might have to accept that what you believe isn't correct.
"You didn't win \$7m from \$1000" - correct. I started with \$3000 and won \$7m over MONTHS of work.
I can do it again because I have changed the math of the game into my favor and there is no way logically for me to lose with my system. I did this for MONTHS - I posted results - not a "lucky streak". I got to first and stayed at the top each week, which was hard work - even though that means nothing to you.
I suppose it is what it is.
If you want to debunk the math of the RNG on the site - feel free. Record the spins as I have from the start and plug them into your software. (I know, you don't have time. about 10 minutes really to auto spin and plug then it). You'll have to accept though that it's not rigged. Surely someone who agrees with you can shoot right up to first and stay there for 3 months ? It's easy !  lol.
Remember though - whatever "bonus" awards you get don't count for the leader board, only profits (which is why there are no other roulette players in sight of me there).
If they give me 2k for logging in - vs - me bringing 2k to the casino to use as a bankroll.. there's no difference. Hell, I even posted a detailed chart of my "bankroll" vs "profits" which clearly showed that no bonus points were relevant to my ranking.
Nothing will matter though - you refuse to believe that there are ways to win.
There's nothing I can do about that.
I can't make you see something that is there if you refuse to accept that you see it.

TurboGenius

Here's some stats.

Spins 0-200 are from RX (RNG)
Spins 201-400 are from Random.org (RNG)
Spins 401-end are from Parx (RNG)

Please note average layouts bet (every spin played and easy bets to place) and net% profit. Yes, I shaded some info because you shouldn't need that info really. The progression can't go out of control because it's actually impossible for that to happen.
I reworked the aggressive progression due to Parx and the 10-100 limits.
But regardless, it still works and can't fail according to the math.
It doesn't take 20 sets of 200,000 spins to test something when the math has changed. (because "not enough spins" comment is coming)
Unless your statistics take into account the math being in the player's favor - you're results could never possibly be the same.
10 hours of play - \$10.00 minimum bet on any location = \$8,610.00
Anyone with the big balls who would use 100's would mean \$86,100.00
But it's all rigged. Who would work a 10 hour day for 86K anyway. Who would play online on a "toy wheel" for "fake" money and make 7 million over 3 months of play.
It's all rigged.

cht

Nobody cares if you don't explain the process. Btw -2500 drawdown is a huge turn off.

Steve

Quote from: TurboGenius on Nov 19, 07:43 AM 2017This is all nonsense you know. But nothing is going to change your mind.

What would change my mind is tangible information that contradicts what I believe. In other words, show me I'm wrong.

In this case my belief is not from personal opinion. Its from tangible and verifiable information, plus logic.

Quote from: TurboGenius on Nov 19, 07:43 AM 2017then used the RNG in RX for 300 spins and then grabbed 300 spins from Random.org. Guess what - exact same results from all 3

300 spins? It is meaningless. Literally unless you have additional data to back it up, 300 spins is a meaningless test. Even 600 spins. Any random system on RX will profit most of the time over 600 spins.

Quote from: TurboGenius on Nov 19, 07:43 AM 2017Or will you use Bago's thoughts that it's rigged "just for me" and no one else ?

Bago is dumb and says stupid things. I am not saying spins are rigged just for you. Like I said, the math at parx is rigged for everyone so that if you play too little, you wont rank well. If you play too much, you lose your bankroll. If you play a fair bit but not too much, you are virtually guaranteed profit and good rankings. I'll explain the math another way later.

I
Quote from: TurboGenius on Nov 19, 07:43 AM 2017If you want to debunk the math of the RNG on the site - feel free

The math and the RNG are two different things. I havent been talking about the RNG at all. I'm talking about the math of prizes.

Quote from: TurboGenius on Nov 19, 07:43 AM 2017about 10 minutes really to auto spin and plug then it). You'll have to accept though that it's not rigged

10 minutes is nowhere near enough to determine if the RNG is fair. But again I'm not talking about the RNG.

Quote from: TurboGenius on Nov 19, 07:43 AM 2017Nothing will matter though - you refuse to believe that there are ways to win.

Actually I have a very open mind. If you've seen people say I don't believe in anything except AP, it is an egg-headed comment I wont go into again.

For me to believe something, there needs to be substantiating data and logic. In your case, the glaringly obvious points are:

1. The math of parx. It is very different to a real casino. It virtually guarantees profit.

2. Contradictions in what you say, indicate you dont understand what you're saying

3. The principles of repeaters and hot numbers is tested to exhaustion. I've tested it myself too. And besides bias, there is no single spin or group of spins that make future spins more likely.

But let's ignore points 2 and 3 and assume you found a new way to beat roulette that has been missed by tonnes of experts. This leaves point 3.

Here's an example of what happens if you play the "right" amount of spins on Parx:

Step 1: You use a typical progression system and have moderate luck, to get one of the minor cash prizes. Now you have a boosted account balance and can afford to bet even higher than other players.

Step 2: Your larger bets mean bigger wins. Sure you might lose too, but you are still on even playing field with other players..... except you have a larger bankroll, and bonus cash. This means when other players go bust, you have funds to prolong progressions and win more.

Step 3: You have an unfair advantage over other players. After all, you've been given extra cash to play. So you are much more likely to beat other players, rank higher, and win even more bonus cash payments.

You then keep repeating steps 2 and 3.

But if you play too much, then you lose your bonus cash amounts PLUS more.

Keep in mind this mathematical situation is what I'm looking at. I'm not looking at the Parx RNG. I'm not unwilling to change my mind. I have simply formed my opinion on the obvious way a player can be virtually guaranteed to profit.

Imagine if someone told you 1+1=5, and they said "no really it's 5. You just have a vested interest in it being 2". The person might really believes it is 5, but you understand why it's not. But their misunderstanding doesn't change reality.

With all things considered, I think you believe your method works. But on the other hand, why have you not made millions from it?
"The only way to beat roulette is by increasing the accuracy of predictions"
Roulettephysics.com â† Professional roulette tips
Roulette-computers.com â† Hidden electronics that predicts the winning number
Roulettephysics.com/roulette-strategy â† Why most systems lose

Steve

PS, random does NOT have limits. Saying random has limits is a terrible misunderstanding of statistics. It's literally like saying "numbers have limits".

Putting it into context of unique numbers, it is more probable that of 37 spins, some numbers will repeat. That's basic statistics. If you check the probability of each spin and compare it to numbers already spun, then you get the same thing that gives the law of a third. It is not a principle that can be used to change odds for the next single spin, or groups of spins. It no different to saying after 1000 spins, if there are mostly reds, bet on black because eventually there will be around an even amount.

Also you cant change the odds of a group of spins and not change the odds of a single spin. It's just mathematically impossible. It really like saying 0+0=0 but 0+0+0+0=2

It's not just you. Many people make the same backwards claims.
"The only way to beat roulette is by increasing the accuracy of predictions"
Roulettephysics.com â† Professional roulette tips
Roulette-computers.com â† Hidden electronics that predicts the winning number
Roulettephysics.com/roulette-strategy â† Why most systems lose

TurboGenius

A few replies - then I'll leave the thread alone, it's not mine anyway. I feel like I hijacked it.

Quote from: Steve on Nov 19, 06:20 PM 2017300 spins? It is meaningless. Literally unless you have additional data to back it up, 300 spins is a meaningless test. Even 600 spins. Any random system on RX will profit most of the time over 600 spins.

This is all dependent on the method being used. It takes a very small sample of spin to show that the math is in the player's favor and very few spins. Actually, depending on how the method is - it could take a few hundred spins or thousands of spins to reach every possible situation the player would face. I don't have this problem, I am guaranteed to win according to the rules of math. So 300 spins or 30,000 spins will produce the same results. You saw that my average amount of layouts bet was around 2 locations. Pretty impressive I'd say.

Quote from: Steve on Nov 19, 06:20 PM 20171. The math of parx. It is very different to a real casino. It virtually guarantees profit.
Quote from: Steve on Nov 19, 06:20 PM 2017Imagine if someone told you 1+1=5, and they said "no really it's 5. You just have a vested interest in it being 2". The person might really believes it is 5, but you understand why it's not. But their misunderstanding doesn't change reality.

Well, there's things we learn every day. There's ways to do things and look at things that haven't been done yet. There's no "end of the book" when it comes to what we know. It might seem like every approach has been tried, tested and failed - but that's not the case.
Did you know that if you take the sum of all natural numbers to infinite -
1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8+9+10+11+12 etc to infinite = -1/12
Sounds stupid, sounds insane, doesn't make sense - and guess what - that's correct.
Roulette has these too. But if you can't think past 1:37 odds and 35:1 payout then you can never understand how I've done what I've done.

As far as using it to be a "millionaire". I'm not sure what that means. I started this when I was incredibly young and haven't stopped. My goal was/is never to beat the game to be "rich". It was to beat the game fair and square, which I've done.
Would I use it to make easy money - sure, and I do. But it would be against everything I believe in and worked for to make shit-loads of money.
Making millions wouldn't matter either though, admit it at least. You would say I had a lucky streak and that as my bankroll grew I had a greater advantage over other players ? What does that mean ? It's US against the casino. It's the player against the math. There's no competition in the real world against anyone else. At the site I just like to point to my ranking because since so many nay-sayers say it's easy and anyone can do it, there's STILL no other roulette players in the top 10. There aren't many in the top 100 actually.
It kinds of shoots the "anyone can do it" and "it's fixed" all to hell just looking at the rankings. That's all, thanks for reading and the debate. It's my hope that the readers continue on exploring the math of the game and aren't ready to throw in the towel when those "who should know" tell them constantly that it's impossible.

Steve

Quote from: TurboGenius on Nov 19, 07:30 PM 2017Would I use it to make easy money - sure, and I do. But it would be against everything I believe in and worked for to make shit-loads of money.

I don't buy that. I think if you could make \$7m with roulette so easily, you would be doing it instead of wasting weeks with fake money play.

Quote from: TurboGenius on Nov 19, 07:30 PM 20171+2+3+4+5+6+7+8+9+10+11+12 etc to infinite = -1/12

Looks like theoretical mathematics that has no relation to reality. Its like 1/0 = infinity.
Infinity is undefined.  It is a concept, not a value.

Quote from: TurboGenius on Nov 19, 07:30 PM 2017It's my hope that the readers continue on exploring the math of the game and aren't ready to throw in the towel when those "who should know" tell them constantly that it's impossible.

Again i'm all for people trying new things. But I have seen nothing at all to indicate what you have is anything new.

Quote from: TurboGenius on Nov 19, 07:30 PM 2017At the site I just like to point to my ranking because since so many nay-sayers say it's easy and anyone can do it, there's STILL no other roulette players in the top 10. There aren't many in the top 100 actually. It kinds of shoots the "anyone can do it" and "it's fixed" all to hell just looking at the rankings.

1. Dont you think validation of your claims is best done on a platform that doesn't guarantee huge winnings?

2. Actually Fossell got pretty close to you and very quickly. Anyone can do the same with random bets, progression, and playing the "right" amount of time (as explained in earlier posts).

It would make little difference which games was used. It's all probability vs payout, plus the massive competition bonuses. It doesnt matter which game its done with.

Anyway through all the fog, one thing is still clear. The parx results are not at all proof of anything. The winnings you achieved are LIKELY for anyone who played the right amount of time. So why on Earth would you use parx as validation if you are mathematically assured of a huge profit even with random bets?
"The only way to beat roulette is by increasing the accuracy of predictions"
Roulettephysics.com â† Professional roulette tips
Roulette-computers.com â† Hidden electronics that predicts the winning number
Roulettephysics.com/roulette-strategy â† Why most systems lose

maestro

just a bit of fun betting numbers with best STD...
Law of the sixth...<when you play roulette there will always be a moron tells you that you will lose to the house edge>

-