Steve and his add...

[ThomasGrant]

For those that have not noticed.
Steve has a add running.

Public Roulette Computer Demo VIDEO Recording Available See link:://:.roulettesystemanalysis.com/m/publicdemo.wmv

Has anyone viewed his video?

[Steve]

roulette computers are not for everyone. Most people have no idea what they can do though. 93% wins betting 15 numbers.. on a difficult wheel.. you dont need anything else. They are still hands down the best way I've ever found to make money (other than owning a bank which allows you to make money from thin air).

[Elvis]

Boy, it's getting a lot harder to post here, with all those "closed threads".

Roulette computers are not for everyone.  Most people have no idea what they can do though.

I don't personally know anyone who has encountered any success with one.  I knew of a few guys, by emails, who couldn't stop talking about ordering some long enough to really think what they were getting into.  Haven't "heard a peep" out of them lately, and they seem to have dropped off the gambling-message boards all together.  Strange (in a bad way) for such talkative persons, right?

Sometimes it's a lot better to know when something's more about a few fun outings than throwing away thousands of dollars, and almost as many hours.  The basic problem with casino-roulette... randomness heaped on randomness.  One could and might strip away a type or two of that sort of randomness to some degree, but never completely enough to yield ANY INCREASE in the game's negative EV.  It's that simple... even by perfect and exhaustive means, after "no more bets" it's anybody's GUESS.  Specifically, that's why YOU can't, let alone won't, produce any real scientific data to the contrary on this board.

93% wins betting 15 numbers.. on a difficult wheel.. you don't need anything else.

Well, i bet you that if we surveyed 15 different tables/banks over a month, we would find that 99% of those have losing/winning clients, respectively.  Can't validate a bad thing by analogy with a good thing; but a bit of good luck could only help.

They are still hands down the best way I've ever found to make money (other than owning a bank which allows you to make money from thin air).

I didn't know that a person was allowed to own a bank.  Aren't there specific rules about such, to prevent such an owner from spouting off nonsense?

I think the reason for so much "developed" internet chatter about roulette is that it has so many false facets from which to try to gain a finger-hold.  After all, they who really understand nothing about anything will immediately feel that every thing is possible.

[Steve]

Boy, it's getting a lot harder to post here, with all those "closed threads".

Elvis, I have only ever closed ONE thread on this forum. Dont be "silly".

I don't personally know anyone who has encountered any success with one.  I knew of a few guys, by emails, who couldn't stop talking about ordering some long enough to really think what they were getting into.  Haven't "heard a peep" out of them lately, and they seem to have dropped off the gambling-message boards all together.  Strange (in a bad way) for such talkative persons, right?

All of my players sign non disclosure agreements. And do you rerally expect people to gloat about it all over the forums? Or would you expect people to be more discrete?

One could and might strip away a type or two of that sort of randomness to some degree, but never completely enough to yield ANY INCREASE in the game's negative EV.  It's that simple... even by perfect and exhaustive means, after "no more bets" it's anybody's GUESS.  Specifically, that's why YOU can't, let alone won't, produce any real scientific data to the contrary on this board.

I'm not sure.. are you talking to me? Assuming you are, your perception of "randomness" is your perception alone. The house edge is nothing more than unfair payouts. To overcome this, you need to increase the accuracy of predictions - even only by a little bit. That is easily achievable, whether you personally have knowledge of it or not. I'm sorry but you have a lot to learn.

"93% wins betting 15 numbers.. on a difficult wheel.. you don't need anything else."

Well, i bet you that if we surveyed 15 different tables/banks over a month, we would find that 99% of those have losing/winning clients, respectively.  Can't validate a bad thing by analogy with a good thing; but a bit of good luck could only help.

Elvis, you just dont know what you're talking about, but it is every man's right to have his own opinion.

[Skakus]

- The house edge is nothing more than unfair payouts. To overcome this, you need to increase the accuracy of predictions - even only by a little bit.

That's it in a nutshell people.


Steve, how's your research into precognitive prediction coming along?

Are we any closer to increasing the accuracy of predictions - even only by a little bit?

[Steve]

I've said many times precognition would likely be the holy grail. I believe in precognition entirely - beyond roulette computers and advantage play, precognition has far more potential.

For now I haven't had time to continue research. For those that don't know what I did, see :.genuinewinner.com/precog.html

Hundreds of people participated which was great. We used the majority vote method which has proven successful by others in controlled experiments. Basically you look at predictions from a group of people, and choose predictions which are most common. The logic behind it is say if 1 person has a 0.01% increase in accuracy of predictions from precognition. If there were 100 people giving predictions, you can increase accuracy of predictions to a reasonable level.

But doing statistically relevant testing is not exactly practical. I'll get more into it and get thousands of people next time over the coming months. I have a few extra promotional sites that are nearly done that will help help get the people we need.

Another practicality issue is say if it works brilliantly.. are we going to split profits over 1000 people?? But at least it would be more proof of concept, although it has already been reasonably well established by independent researchers in controlled conditions. Put it this way.. the results were clear enough to be statisticallty relevant. But there is still some doubt. But there is ALWAYS some doubt, even with 10,000 spins for bias analysis.

[Skakus]

..But there is ALWAYS some doubt

Doubt is the Achilles heel of precognitive ability. 

[Steve]

Yes and another barrier is for someone to have a strong ability, they need to have UNDERSTANDING of what they are and what everything is around them. It is a spiritual kind of connection. And when you have that connection, you are not concerned with "profit". So in this case, you can have what you want, but only when you dont want it.. which is somewhat a paradox. Still though even slight accuracy of predictions for a group of people with the majority vote method should be enough.

[Elvis]

All of my players sign non-disclosure agreements. And do you really expect people to gloat about it all over the forums? Or would you expect people to be more discrete?

I'd expect to see some winners (at the tables) for once.  And likely, someone to re-write it up in a manner quite-suitable for public consumption regardless YOUR set-up... to collect the really "big bucks".

I'm not sure.. are you talking to me? Assuming you are, your perception of "randomness" is your perception alone.

No, the universe isn't waiting for my, or your, "perception(s)" of it to form itself.  Randomness is the same "bugger" for everyone.

The house edge is nothing more than unfair payouts.

The casinos don't cheat, etc, until they have to.  Before then, all payouts are not "unfair"... as the player ABSOLUTELY accepts the casino's posted rules and regulations, etc.  Perhaps you meant 'asymmetrical'?  Or that employing such devices is "unfair"... even outright cheating, e.g.?

Elvis, you just don't know what you're talking about, but it is every man's right to have his own opinion.

Thank you.

[Steve]

Elvis:

1. If you want to see it for yourself, visit one of my public demos. Until then, you can wait around the tables in your casino and wait for someone to tap you on the shoulder and say "hey! I'm using a roulette computer!"

2. Perception alone is not reality. Reality is reality regardless of perception. Nothing is random. Your perception of random suggest things happen for no reason. There is no such thing as random. There is only cause and effect. Understanding the cause and calculating variables gives us predictions of the effect (winning number), which is accurate enough to overcome the house edge. People that don't have the understaning of cause and effect will throw their hands in the air and say "oh darn, its all random". Whether or not you understand that, I don't care.

3. I have never known a real casino to CHEAT. The house edge is all they need for the average player, 99.99% of players that have no idea about what roulette is, and how to beat it. The house edge is UNFAIR.. that's the point, and why its called the "house edge". It is not at all difficult to overcome it. Its just that most people go about it completely the wrong way.

I really don't want to go in circles with you anymore.

[Elvis]

Oh boy, another "closed thread".

1. If you want to see it for yourself, visit one of my public demos. Until then, you can wait around the tables in your casino and wait for someone to tap you on the shoulder and say "hey! I'm using a roulette computer!"

I look at the end results first.  No winners is no winners.  And specifically, some people who have tried all that stuff, and given it up along with their bankroll.  I haven't signed anything, LoL, so could name one or two, but you would just say that they weren't doing it right.  I don't even know anyone who knows anyone who has done what you claim here.  So why would i bother to watch even one non-live, edited/convenient demo?  That's the point at which one must "draw the line".

2. Perception alone is not reality. Reality is reality regardless of perception. Nothing is random. Your perception of random suggest things happen for no reason. There is no such thing as random. There is only cause and effect. Understanding the cause and calculating variables gives us predictions of the effect (winning number), which is accurate enough to overcome the house edge. People that don't have the understaning of cause and effect will throw their hands in the air and say "oh darn, its all random". Whether or not you understand that, I don't care.

From one extreme to another, and quite a bit of "oh darn" on your part in between.

Ever hear of 'quantum physics', the (proved) basic micro-randomness on which our macro-universe rests?  Not even Einstein was able to wish/formulate that away, and he was the one who "opened the door" to it through his Theory of Relativity.  And though the latter does bring "cause and effect" to physics, it strongly states that nothing is absolute... not even computers of the highest order.

This is why it's best to leave such to the real experts, especially matters of philosophical paradox.  Show me a neurotic/psychotic, and i'll show you a fundamentalist for one of the "new-age sciences".

3. I have never known a real casino to CHEAT. The house edge is all they need for the average player, 99.99% of players that have no idea about what roulette is, and how to beat it. The house edge is UNFAIR.. that's the point, and why its called the "house edge". It is not at all difficult to overcome it. Its just that most people go about it completely the wrong way.

Then you have never well beaten one; nor read the similar accounts of many of the famous card-counters, who, by the way, sell their published work to the public for the most profit.

It's not "unfair".  Casinos have overhead, etc, expenses like every other for-profit business.  No one is literally forced to go there to accept their terms.

That "most go about it the wrong way" in no way implies that there is a right way, or that you have found it.

I really don't want to go in circles with you anymore.

Which is why i'm trying to be as specific and to-the-point as possible, until you give me something more- specific and accurate with which to work.