Who cares about the odds?

[Andre Chass]

The same math rules apply to all progressions, positive and negative.

Progressive bet sizing has to make math sense. It's got nothing to do with winning faster.  Simply put, we bet more because we have more chance to win vv. No offence pls.

I think you and Steve didn't understand it yet. I make TG words my own.

"I play with a progression, progressions aren't the enemy and only amplify whatever is happening. If you're playing a method that loses - you'll lose more, if you're playing a winning method, you'll win more. In a typical system using a progression just means digging into a bottomless hole at some point and small wins that don't recover. That's not what I'm doing."

[cht]

I think you and Steve didn't understand it yet. I make TG words my own.

"I play with a progression, progressions aren't the enemy and only amplify whatever is happening. If you're playing a method that loses - you'll lose more, if you're playing a winning method, you'll win more. In a typical system using a progression just means digging into a bottomless hole at some point and small wins that don't recover. That's not what I'm doing."

Pls don't misread my post, don't add to it or take away from it. It is what it is - not more not less.

[Madi]

Cht
Which number does have the higher probability?  There can several  or all same.

[cht]

Cht
Which number does have the higher probability?  There can several  or all same.

Good question.

Find out yourself every single number. Not mocking you. It takes that much to properly understand what the math behind the spins are telling you. Seriously, do the work CORRECTLY AND COMPLETELY.

[Madi]

Seriously is there any math for next spin or the previous spin that we got??

[Steve]

Andre, really I do get what he's saying. That's not the problem.

The problem is the method of bet selection is no different to random with respect to accuracy. While things like "accuracy and odds doesn't matter" and "we bet on things that must happen" can be said, they are incorrect because:

1. Without accuracy increase, your bet selection is as good as random guessing

2. Nothing "must happen". We still know there will probably be half-half reds/blacks. But you cant use that, at all. You are always going to be not quite accurate enough. Around 2.7% not accurate enough.

Unfortunately it is just not being understood, we keep going in circles, and people think I'm the one lacking understanding. Many people lately seem to think they have the HG all of a sudden. Well I suppose i wasn't any different a while back. I really do hope i'm wrong and everyone keeps winning.

[cht]

Steve, I don't think you got your thinking wrong, your tests is also not wrong.

Fact is I tested just like you, got the exact same results like you and everybody else. I was exhausted testing the shit in every possible way I could think off.

That is until it dawned on me there has to be a basis for the test. This basis has to be irrefutably rock solid grounded on sound math.

If a A-level student who got grade A for Further Math and good at Stats1/2/3 given the full info he should have no problem to solve this equation.

Seriously, I personally think there are already some guys out there who know what I'm talking about. They have the solution way before me, just that they are keeping quiet. It's too simple and obvious that these math competent guys will miss it. TG and winkel posted their stuff years ago.

[Tinsoldiers]

That is until it dawned on me there has to be a basis for the test. This basis has to be irrefutably rock solid grounded on sound math

I was about to write on the similar lines and you beat me to it. You don’t have to test billions of spins to prove something right or wrong, as long as the underlying maths proves it, a short term test is more than what is needed.  Also it is wrong to assume that just because you have tested billions of spins for tons of years, you have closed all possibilities. 

There is clearly confusion going on about odds and payouts. Odds of the game cannot be changed. Payouts cannot be changed. Odds of next spin cannot be changed.  But it is wrong to assume that as long as there is no fair payout you cannot win long term. There are lots of no zero roulette games available and people will be minting money. Zero and unfair payouts are only part of the problem. Anyone who understands basic maths can easily tell this and it doesn’t need an expert.

One thing that stood out for me in the whole thread is the point of view on odds of next spin. Odds of next spin will not matter as long as you see spins as Part of a larger set of spins which abide by certain characteristics. While you may not be able predict next spin or the next set of spins, there must be a way somewhere out there which can help benefit from the characteristics. I can’t say for sure, but that might be what turbogenius and cht and original poster of this thread is pointing to.

[Blood Angel]

Its like how Turbo says in 37 spins there will never be 37 unique numbers. Actually if you test enough spins, it will happen. And if you test enough spins, it clearly happens the same amount of times as any other combination of spins.

In my case, one thing I've done is used automated software to check billions of spins for patterns

Hi Steve, in your billions of spins did you ever see 37 unique numbers!?

[Tinsoldiers]

Hi Steve, in your billions of spins did you ever see 37 unique numbers!?

I doubt because the probability or as people say here ODDS of that is more than a billion spins.

[Steve]

Hi Steve, in your billions of spins did you ever see 37 unique numbers!?

I don't think so, but there are countless other combinations i never saw either. Before you think its proof you can make a winning system around this principle, keep this in mind......

Test a hypothetical wheel with 5 numbers. All the principles are the same as a wheel with 37 numbers. And clearly any combination of spins will occur as often as another, including 5 unique numbers in 5 spins. The only difference with 37 pockets is more possibilities.

Here's an easy test. Get a file with a few billion spins. Use my free software and check for a sequence of spins like 0,0,0. Or 1,2,3, or 3,2,1, or 34,8,16.

The software tells you how many times these sequences spin. You'll find they happen around the same amount of times.

There's more to it, but its a simple demonstration that hot or cold numbers is fallacy. So is the impossibility of 37 unique numbers in 37 spins. Its just another combination of spins.

[Tinsoldiers]

Get a file with a few billion spins. Use my free software and check for a sequence of spins like 0,0,0. Or 1,2,3, or 3,2,1, or 34,8,16.

I read your posts on this subject and your intentions and genuine. You don’t want people to be misguided. I am also not able to see how this will work. However the arguments that you are putting across is weak and comes across as having a very narrow mindset. It is like someone saying I have got chocolate milk that is brown in colour and you saying I have seen milk it is always white and hence chocolate milk has to be white.

No one is talking about patterns. There is a difference between patterns and what is being suggested here. All is being said is there will be repeaters and is governed by maths. This I think you will agree to. And it is being said that repeaters will make some numbers appear more than what their odds suggest for a set period of time. This I think again being an expert as you claim in roulette you will agree to. 

As soon as you agree to the above you are agreeing to the fact that odds of certain numbers appearing has been changed for a short duration of time and your question of odds changing has been answered.

If you don’t agree to the above, then you are not coming to the party with an open mindset. They are talking about repeaters and not numbers in general. All they are saying is a repeater can happen only if a number is already on the screen. Any other number you cannot call a repeater. A dealer starts spinning and the first 3 numbers are 36, 20 and 13. Now only these three numbers can repeat, nothing else. Odds of a repeater is 3/37 which is better than predicting what the next number is which will always remain 1/37. So the odds of a repeater is different from the odds of a number.

Now, what is not clear is how do you find those numbers that repeat. How do you find those numbers whose odds are changed for a short duration. There are claims that are vague. Claimants will remain vague for whatever reason and the proofs will never be sufficient. It will be a cyclic argument which will confuse and muddle it further. One has to be wise and let the readers decide whether to spend time investigate this further or not.

This is an endless argument about proving or disproving something that has not been and will never be explained clearly.

[sentinel3]

Its very easy to win MOST of the time.

For example, play just 10 spins and bet on red. Double your bet after losses and walk away when you profit. You will win MOST of the time. But when you lose, you lose all your winnings and more.

The casino wants you to think the way you are thinking.

Judgement of what? Is your judgement making you win more often than you would with random bets?

That's 50m spins per person. Seeing around 100,000 spins is probably the most any player would see in their lifetime.

How much do you lose when you lose?

And would this strategy work for 100 players if they all used it too? What would be the combined profit/loss? How would you know which players won or lost?

If I have 2 apples in a basket, and eat 1, how many apples do I have left?
2 - 1 = 1 apple left.
That's the math. It IS real life.

What you are doing is incorrectly calculating, then calling math irrelevant because it's just numbers.

I'm sorry but you're quite wrong, and only looking at one side of the equation.

Steve you have too much respect and fear of the odds and payout of the game of roulette.

Im not sure you can grasp what im putting across here. It matters NOT that 1 plus 1=2. When you know the vast majority of the time you will WIN.

What you are assuming is an endless attempt to garner a profit. Until you either win or bust.

Thats not what im implying here. Roulette is a PERCENTAGE GAME. Nothing more nothing less.

If I say i will always win at least 5 times out of 10. How do you lose? You know in that framwork of 10 games. 5 belong to you at LEAST. Now once you know that the fear is gone.

Nothing variance can do means anything to you. At the end of the day you are STILL going to win at least 5 times out of 10.

Thats the thinking that you and most cannot grasp. You keep dwelling on the house edge. And variance and all that you think you know. Makes or breaks your success or failure with this game.

All I care about is hitting my minumum expectancy. Ive had sessions where zero hit 6 times. The ball hit a single dozen 10 straight times. Landed on the same number 4 times in row. Came off the wheel entirely.

I STILL got my 5 wins out of ten minumum. I make my own rules. And variance is bent into my blueprint. Its tamed in my framework.

It can do whatever it wants. Those 5 wins minumum are still coming. If I lost 7 or 8 out of ten. Then ive got a bad run. But while im getting my 5 out of ten or better. The result is certain profit.

Yes a hundred people will be successful if they follow the system to the letter. A good system doesnt fail. The person playing it fails first. Thats what casinos know and need.

Your greed and impatience are your enemies. As Brett Morton says in his stellar book playing to win.

The ENEMY in the casino is YOU. You will fail and falter. Before any good system.

[Steve]

I'm sorry guys, you got it backwards.

Who's right, and who's wrong. What's a good way to know?

[Tinsoldiers]

I'm sorry guys, you got it backwards.

Who's right, and who's wrong. What's a good way to know?

There is no way unless the one who claims tells step by step what he does and am pretty certain that he won’t.