Dyksexlic, proof of identity

[flukey luke]

Victor, I am pretty sure that Dyksexlic is referring to Edsger Djikstra.

[VLS]

link:://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edsger_W._Dijkstra

The one in the IT field, Structured programming. Right?

[Ka2]

I'm sorry I simply meant that in some order to secure a win, you are basically dependent on some other mathematical principles, call it the law of the third / average what ever.

We all know that the RNG will not cheat that much. (that's why I think you called it subtle) But like you I was looking for 100% I think I fully understand the concepts behind your idea. I mean they were obvious in your previous posts.

But lets assume, the RNG DOES cheat that way, just for the sake of argument, it is impossible for us to win. So what I meant is that basically your still are dependent (percentage wise) on how much the RNG is going to cheat.

I have NEVER witnessed an RNG which played 100% against the player in that manner.

But if it did, you loose, correct?

(In a way it's a relief you say it's not going to cheat that much, because I was looking for the impossible, and I could not find the solution.)

[Bayes]

@ Dyksexlic!

Since you are the one making claims (albeit vague ones), the ball is in your court. It's not MY responsibility to "prove" that the PP can not be used to guarantee a win (which would be impossible anyway), but I think it's pretty obvious that it can't.

Just a reminder that "hinting" is not tolerated in this forum; we've had enough of members being led a merry dance by those who seem to derive some pleasure in watching it. You've said that you don't intend to reveal your method, and that's fine, but if we start hearing the strains of dance music, the mods will be over you like a rash.

One more thing: you state that the previous "Dyksexlic" was not you, but an imposter. I find it odd that you didn't register a complaint at the time; are we to believe that during this time when the "imposter" was in residence, you weren't reading the forum? or if you were, you just didn't care? neither scenario seems likely to me.

I'll leave members to come to their own conclusions.

[Dyksexlic!]

@flukey luke and VLS
Yes, I was referring to Professor Edsger Djikstra. A beautiful mind.

@Bayes
There is NO conspiracy at work.

Your perverse virtue of humility is intoxicating.

For the record, I had no prior knowledge of this Dyksexlic 'imposter' chappie, as verified by several independant sources. Victor and Ka2 will attest.

So, why do you seek to persecute me? Your crass cynicism amounts to intellectual treason..!

I make NO errant claim. Mathematics is the lost key to all of roulette's hidden treasures.

As far as I am concerned, there is NO need to to discuss either my 100% winning bet selection method or the mysterious Pigeonhole Principle.

Be that as it may, certain forum members have expressed an desire to debate this maths topic. I was therefore prepared to engage in an open discussion.

Discerning minds need only a hint, as understatement leaves the imagination free to build its own elaborations.

Make no mistake. Roulette needs ME..!

Permanent success cannot be achieved except by incessant intellectual labour, always inspired by the ideal.

Where better than here, on an OPEN roulette forum..?

But, if you believe my prescence will somehow antagonise the power-drunk moderators, then I'll consign this intellectual debate to history..!

Good day to you Sir.


@Ka2
Yes, the foundation of the bet is the Pigeonhole Principle.

You're correct, all roulette systems are subject to the maths of the game.  

This is actually a GOOD thing as the casino is ALSO subject to the same maths of the game.

No 38 spin sequence can therefore cause the Pigeonhole Principle to fail.

The Principle 'underwrites' the system's 100% win guarantee.

So, if a rogue RNG played 100% against the system, it would STILL win.

100% Guaranteed. No 'luck' involved.

Yes, I know exactly what you're thinking..

"odds of 35:1"
"negative expection"
"rigged RNG"

blah, blah, blah

[esoito]

LOL

"Make no mistake. Roulette needs ME..!"

...he said, modestly. (With his tongue in his cheek?)

[Ka2]

LoL

"Make no mistake. Roulette needs ME..!"

...he said, modestly. (With his tongue in his cheek?)

All right then! So it's oke for you to ridicule someone, but if I make a tiny remark I almost get banned! You know this is starting to look al lot like the old VLS forum, the mods could say whatever they want whenever they wanted.

You know D is only here to help, He helped me a LOT! That you guys cant see the truth, I'm sorry, but please if its helpful for someone else, let him continue!

[Ka2]

It seem that I am the moderator of this thread and I can remove posts. FROM NOW ON I will remove every post, that's insulting or not contributing to this thread!

D? are you still willing to share hints?

[Bayes]

@ Dyksexlic!

I've said my piece, and you've said yours. Time to move on I think.

Be that as it may, certain forum members have expressed an desire to debate this maths topic. I was therefore prepared to engage in an open discussion.

Go ahead. Feel free to start a new thread on the PP and its applications (as you said you would like to do earlier in this thread).

This thread though, is now locked.