• 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

Latest discussion on repeaters(GF)

Started by cht, Mar 20, 12:17 AM 2018

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Steve

Quote from: Kav on Sep 12, 12:39 AM 2019System players look at spins collectively, as data obeying rules (probability) and try to work through them statistically

No matter how many times you beat a dead horse's ass, it's not coming back to life.

Quote from: Kav on Sep 12, 12:39 AM 2019they only care about physical causality

Not exactly. We look at data collectively - we look well beyond one spin. We look at statistics. We look at statistical relevance - ie is an event happening outside what would be expected if results were random?

An AP player looks at far more data than typical system players. That's why we're always saying "test more spins", and system players respond with "but we'll never play that many spins".

One example: statistics does not guarantee a wheel is biased, or that something is legit. Simply the more data you have, the more sure you can be.

Quote from: Kav on Sep 12, 12:39 AM 2019There is not a chance they would talk about the bank and understand each other,

APs do understand system players. The problem is system players are wrong. Need proof? Never once have I ever known a system player, on this on any other forum, to give one valid point about "statistics" that can be exploited. There's plenty of talk like "there must be repeats", which is as useful as saying "eventually every number will spin".

Nobody is saying you cant win with a system. Like nobody is saying you can't win with random bets. A legitimate advantage is something very different.

APs do not have the misunderstanding. We can make statements, and back them up with verifiable proof. System players say "look, there are always repeats and we can prove it", but they are not understanding it's just basic statistics.

The day I find one tangible shred of information that indicates an edge is possible with nonsense like repeats, is the day I swap AP for it.
"The only way to beat roulette is by increasing the accuracy of predictions"
Roulettephysics.com ← Professional roulette tips
Roulette-computers.com ← Hidden electronics that predicts the winning number
Roulettephysics.com/roulette-strategy ← Why most systems lose

Blueprint

123 - can numbers increase without the first or second elements?  Can a decrease from 2 to 1 or 3 to 2 occur without the first element defining it?

Dependence creates a bias.  Accept that fact or move on.

Steve

Blueprint, your example is unclear. Please be more clear and elaborate.

What elements? 123 what? Whats decreasing? Whats defining what?
"The only way to beat roulette is by increasing the accuracy of predictions"
Roulettephysics.com ← Professional roulette tips
Roulette-computers.com ← Hidden electronics that predicts the winning number
Roulettephysics.com/roulette-strategy ← Why most systems lose

Kav

Steve,

I believe Blueprint refers to the known "argument" that to become a 3-times repeater a number has first to be a 2-times repeater etc.
I would agree with you on this one. It is stating the obvious and does not offer a clue on how to use this fact to our advantage.

Steve

How is it different to: for there to be two winning numbers, first there must be one.

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

luckyfella

Quote from: Blueprint on Sep 12, 08:18 PM 2019
Dependence creates a bias.  Accept that fact or move on.
Blueprint statement is correct.

But it does not explain things properly.

I started a new thread specially to discuss this aspect.
This thread is a discussion for people who wish to know more about this topic, the facts. No some shit. I dont care about your forum status - both forum owners means zero in my discussion, no disrespect intended. So dont write shit in my thread.
link:s://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=26299.msg230945;topicseen#msg230945

For those who want to know real stuff, do yourself a favour read this thread.

I will write more when I have the time.
Goodbye everyone - 20/10/2019

Steve

But there is no such dependence.

Can someone show otherwise?

When "proof" is provided so far, its an error or misundersranding.

If people are going to make claims, back them up.
"The only way to beat roulette is by increasing the accuracy of predictions"
Roulettephysics.com ← Professional roulette tips
Roulette-computers.com ← Hidden electronics that predicts the winning number
Roulettephysics.com/roulette-strategy ← Why most systems lose

Steve

Quote from: luckyfella on Sep 13, 02:58 AM 2019I dont care about your forum status - both forum owners means zero in my discussion, no disrespect intended. So dont write shit in my thread.

Nobody gives a shit who owns the forum. Why would you even make a point like that?

What matters is verifiable fact, not fairytales.  It looks like you use my position as admin to discount what ive said.

Focus on the message, not the messenger.
"The only way to beat roulette is by increasing the accuracy of predictions"
Roulettephysics.com ← Professional roulette tips
Roulette-computers.com ← Hidden electronics that predicts the winning number
Roulettephysics.com/roulette-strategy ← Why most systems lose

luckyfella

Steve, pls delete this post, I posted on wrong thread. Thanks
Goodbye everyone - 20/10/2019

redhot

Quote from: Steve on Sep 12, 08:25 PM 2019
Blueprint, your example is unclear. Please be more clear and elaborate.

What elements? 123 what? Whats decreasing? Whats defining what?

I assume he's referring to the results being higher or lower than the previous result.

The result (higher or lower) has a dependence on the previous number.


Joe

Quote from: Blueprint on Sep 12, 08:18 PM 2019Dependence creates a bias.  Accept that fact or move on.

No it doesn't. Spins can be dependent/independent with or without there also being a bias. Bias and independence are not related, and certainly not by cause and effect.
Logic. It's always in the way.

luckyfella

Quote from: Joe on Sep 14, 05:39 AM 2019
No it doesn't. Spins can be dependent/independent with or without there also being a bias. Bias and independence are not related, and certainly not by cause and effect.
You are correct again. My earlier comment is wrong and I admit it. I am here to make post that's correct. Not spread wrong fact.

Lets be fair to blueprint who, like me, don't have a major in math. But I do read up on the facts to know what's right or wrong. In this case you are correct and we are wrong. I am wrong twice. But I correct myself when you point it out, so thank you again. :thumbsup:
Goodbye everyone - 20/10/2019

Blueprint

Quote from: Joe on Sep 14, 05:39 AM 2019
...and certainly not by cause and effect.

Perhaps you’re finally on to something there  :thumbsup:

Blueprint

Ordinal sample-
What is the 3rd thing?

Cardinal sample â€"
Create a set or classification, what are 2 things..?

Now what?

-