Reading Randomness ( The Real Way ) @ Roulette Simulator

[gizmotron2]

Get to 1st position on the rankings and don't make excuses if you lose.

The same goes for you too. I'm using only rated games with 3,000 units at the start of each session. So let's see if you can get to first place using rated games only. I'm making around 1000 per game. I will win at a rate of around 2 to 1, hopefully a little better. That means for every 1,000 lost I will make 2,000. It works out at 14 bets won for every 7 bets lost. This is nearly all flat betting when bets are placed. There are no progressions. It's just guessing.

It would take around 1400 sessions to reach 1,000,000 units won. At 3 sessions per day that would be 4 years.  You do that in a day some times.  I don't think you can do it in one year with just rated games that start at 3,000.

So I challenge you to start from 0 and try with rated games only and we will see how good you think you are too.

[precogmiles]

The same goes for you too. I'm using only rated games with 3,000 units at the start of each session. So let's see if you can get to first place using rated games only. I'm making around 1000 per game. I will win at a rate of around 2 to 1, hopefully a little better. That means for every 1,000 lost I will make 2,000. It works out at 14 bets won for every 7 bets lost. This is nearly all flat betting when bets are placed. There are no progressions. It's just guessing.

It would take around 1400 sessions to reach 1,000,000 units won. At 3 sessions per day that would be 4 years.  You do that in a day some times.  I don't think you can do it in one year with just rated games that start at 3,000.

So I challenge you to start from 0 and try with rated games only and we will see how good you think you are too.

I am already in 1st position. Use progression if you think it helps. We are waiting.

[gizmotron2]

When you lose you always seem to blame something. First excuse was you were bored, next excuse was you were trying to hide your method, then it was you were lazy.

If you so convinced that reading randomness works and that the only time you fail is when you fail on purpose, then how is anyone supposed to judge if it works or not?

It is a complete contradiction.

I get to treat people any way that I want to. Why would I ever give skeptics and mathZombies proof? The funny part is I have a nice group of people that don't think that it works. I did this while explaining how it works.  All I'm doing now is proving 4.66 to 1 that equates to 2 to 1 in long run testing.  Your concerns are nothing to me. And I could care less who you convince that you are right. If I can prove 4.66 wins at 3 net wins to one loss at 7 net losses then I will have only proved that I can do it.  You will have some wonderful excuse for not liking it then, that's for sure.

This time I'm allowing myself to end a session at 7 net losses as a loss. I never did that at RS before. This is a test of the 3 / 7 technique.

[gizmotron2]

I am already in 1st position. Use progression if you think it helps. We are waiting.

Are you daffy? You are not using Rated games. You are not anything unless you prove that you can do it all with 3,000 sessions.

[Mean]

I will win at a rate of around 2 to 1,

No, you won't.

It's just guessing.

You can't win by "guessing."

[Mean]

I get to treat people any way that I want to.

Let's treat you for what you are: a loser.

Why would I ever give skeptics and mathZombies proof?

You are literally unable to do that.

All I'm doing now is proving 4.66 to 1 that equates to 2 to 1 in long run testing.

Another lie

If I can prove 4.66 wins at 3 net wins to one loss at 7 net losses then I will have only proved that I can do it. 

IF. And IF I can prove that I can jump to the moon, then I will have proof I can do it.

[precogmiles]

I get to treat people any way that I want to. Why would I ever give skeptics and mathZombies proof? The funny part is I have a nice group of people that don't think that it works. I did this while explaining how it works.  All I'm doing now is proving 4.66 to 1 that equates to 2 to 1 in long run testing.  Your concerns are nothing to me. And I could care less who you convince that you are right. If I can prove 4.66 wins at 3 net wins to one loss at 7 net losses then I will have only proved that I can do it.  You will have some wonderful excuse for not liking it then, that's for sure.

This time I'm allowing myself to end a session at 7 net losses as a loss. I never did that at RS before. This is a test of the 3 / 7 technique.

Ok, You basically want to prove it to yourself because you are unsure it works. I understand. You may continue.

[precogmiles]

Are you daffy? You are not using Rated games. You are not anything unless you prove that you can do it all with 3,000 sessions.

It is ok if you refuse to take the challenge  because you are not sure reading randomness works.

[Mean]

It is ok if you refuse to take the challenge  because you are not sure reading randomness works.

RR is proven to not work. There are no magical patterns that the roulette wheel produces for anyone to take advantage. Giz knows this. He is a liar.

[gizmotron2]

It is ok if you refuse to take the challenge  because you are not sure reading randomness works.

This is pointless. You are not really a challenger.

This is you a week ago. You would get killed on Rated games.

[gizmotron2]

RR is proven to not work. There are no magical patterns that the roulette wheel produces for anyone to take advantage. Giz knows this. He is a liar.

Get prepared to change your mind. You will. Perhaps you will need a safe place for snowflakes?

[precogmiles]

This is pointless. You are not really a challenger.

This is you a week ago. You would get killed on Rated games.

You are desperate. You are so uncertain that reading randomness works that you want to prove it to yourself. 15 years of failed attempts, no wonder you are so unsure about it.

[precogmiles]

Gizmo just give up. You failed the challenge and reading randomness has a track record of failed attempts both on MPR and roulette simulator.

[gizmotron2]

Gizmo just give up. You failed the challenge and reading randomness has a track record of failed attempts both on MPR and roulette simulator.

If I was destined to take advice from you I would give up. Just exactly what is your job here? You make as much sense as a pretend super hero.

All I have to do is demonstrate 4.66 to 1 that equates to 2 to 1 in long run flat betting. That's bets from 360 to 420 depending on how many numbers I cover at a time.  That picture of you descending into the Mariana's Trench was exciting.

[gizmotron2]

You are desperate. You are so uncertain that reading randomness works that you want to prove it to yourself. 15 years of failed attempts, no wonder you are so unsure about it.

Just keep telling yourself that. You are a pretend person depending on putting me down. I give you meaning. You are a sucker because you think what you see is clear and that you are important. It's all a joke.