Real Answers to help you to win

[Steve]

Wendel, a few questions for you. Very simple and straight-forward questions, so you can give clear answers without dancing around:

1. Are you going to give Pete back his money since you make over $4m/day?

2. If your other systems you sold fail, why should anyone believe a word you say?

3. Why are you posting under a fake name?

4. Give me one clear tangible fact that gives us proof of your claims that you have discovered a new fantastamagical super dooper higher math law.

5. EXACTLY what is the difference between a basic math law and higher math law? Define it.

Thing is Wendel, I dont even know you but have read enough of your posts to know what you are. I dont think you'll ever give clear answers - you'll just dance around, mislead people, for whatever reasons - kicks, scamming people or whatever.

[Ka2]

One more thing
Please answer this I will give you the right answer later

Why doesn't 35 come out 4 times in a row.
Then right after that 32 come out 4 times in a row
Then after that 1 come out 4 times in a row.

You can win

Well this allready shows you know nothing of random. Because...

this

35---35---35---35---32---32---32---32--1---1---1---1

is EXACTLY the same as this

1---17---34---9---36---24---20---3---5---19---17---12

So my question to you is. Why dont YOU see the above sequence come out?

[bombus]

Well this allready shows you know nothing of random. Because...

this

35---35---35---35---32---32---32---32--1---1---1---1

is EXACTLY the same as this

1---17---34---9---36---24---20---3---5---19---17---12

So my question to you is. Why dont YOU see the above sequence come out?

Thanks Ka2, but they are not exactly the same. They are the same in respect of both being a fairly unique 12 number sequence, but when you consider the physical properties of the roulette wheel, the second sequence is far more likely to repeat than the first... not the numbers, but the pattern.

IMO there are absolutely too many random variables within each spin of the wheel for the resulting pattern of the 1st sequence to be as common as the pattern of the 2nd sequence.

[MiniBaccarat]

G'day,

Can you beat roulette mathematically? No, you cannot. Why? Because the payouts are unfair for the outcomes. So you can only overcome this by increasing the accuracy of predictions - it is a fundamental fact. Can you increase accuracy of predictions with math? Not unless you use math to calculate things like rotor decay, which is more physics.

This is your opinion, admittedly also believed by others, but there's still no proof, while there are a lot of people out there / here claiming the opposite.

The 'math' that is put forward by the 'math people' to support their point of view is flawed, at least by the fact that it doesn't tell the full story of what is possible.

[gizmotron]

The 'math' that is put forward by the 'math people' to support their point of view is flawed, at least by the fact that it doesn't tell the full story of what is possible.

They never tell the story of the math that fits for the current state of conditions being seen. They never produce the math that tells how long a trend will last the next time one occurs. They never show their own selective versions of "laws of math." In a way it's a kind of dogma. It's a useful convenience for them, like a crutch. They can't explain trend exploitation and they hate it when anyone claims they can do something like that but won't explain it. So we get an endless tirade of absolute math axioms. Unfortunately that doesn't fit the discussions, the explanations, or the situations encountered in real play. Also, they can't explain this paragraph. I always ask them to give us some math dealing with current occurring trends. They always run and hide for those questions. It's a trend.

[Bayes]

They always run and hide for those questions.

Gizmo,

The maths is not flawed. When you ask vague questions like "what is the math of the currently occurring trend?", how is anyone supposed to answer that without more information? You have to be more specific, otherwise all your protestations are merely evasions. Guys like MiniBaccarat are winning because they use huge progressions and bankrolls, but it doesn't mean they have found an edge. Good luck to you if you're winning this way and can stomach that kind of risk/reward ratio.

[gizmotron]

Gizmo,

The maths is not flawed. When you ask vague questions like "what is the math of the currently occurring trend?", how is anyone supposed to answer that without more information? You have to be more specific, otherwise all your protestations are merely evasions. Guys like MiniBaccarat are winning because they use huge progressions and bankrolls, but it doesn't mean they have found an edge. Good luck to you if you're winning this way and can stomach that kind of risk/reward ratio.

1.) I never said the math was flawed. I quoted something that MiniBaccarat wrote.

2.) When I ask questions, that you call vague, I never get follow up questions regarding further information required. I'm not getting specific questions even now. So you want me to get specific and then you will answer it. I've always known that you can't answer these kind of questions because they would be useless answers at a real casino during a real session. So we can have our little word game and then you will duck the really hard questions.

Please explain how long term math relates to the current state of ten reds in a row, where both reds and blacks have been grouping in stretches of similar streaks for the past hour. Now if that trait were to continue for the next hour would that give you an advantage? What long term math expectation prevents you from exploiting that two hour trend? Because after the two hours are up you would know if you did well or not. It's possible to have an experience that does not fit the long term expectations of the math. Is that possible?

Now run and hide. That's what always happens.

[Bayes]

Please explain how long term math relates to the current state of ten reds in a row, where both reds and blacks have been grouping in stretches of similar streaks for the past hour. Now if that trait were to continue for the next hour would that give you an advantage? What long term math expectation prevents you from exploiting that two hour trend? Because after the two hours are up you would know if you did well or not. It's possible to have an experience that does not fit the long term expectations of the math. Is that possible?

For starters, you need to quantify past spins in terms of numbers, not time.  This is just common sense Gizmo, try to use some if you have any!

"grouping in stretches of similar streaks..." Again, this is vague - what does it mean?

• how many numbers are you talking about?
• what is a "stretch" - how long is it?
• what does "similar" mean?
• what is a "streak" - how long is it?

The maths does not only relate to "long term", and you can get a formula for any sequence of whatever length you're interested in. It will be an "average" (that's the "long-term" part) + an "error" term, which is the standard deviation.

The maths is sound for any event you can dream up, but you need to give precise, numerical information, otherwise it's helpless. But this is the very thing you sneer at, so I don't expect to get any. Furthermore, I think you know deep down that if you were to provide it, it would show no advantage whatsoever, so that's another reason to keep things vague and ambiguous. Much better for you to keep it mysterious, then you can never be proved wrong - just like Wendel.  

In any case, it's not our job to prove you wrong. You're making the claim - you back it up. If you don't want to - fine! but don't keep on with the baloney festivals.

[MiniBaccarat]

G'day,

The 'math' that is put forward by the 'math people' to support their point of view is flawed, at least by the fact that it doesn't tell the full story of what is possible.

Based on Gizmo's 10 reds, I would have made at that stage $1,550 return for my $50 outlay.

I don't see 100 units BR as much compared to 20 units an hour profit when I have an 'edge' over the Casino!

What do I mean by 'edge'?
1) I choose when to bet,
2) I choose when not to bet,
3) They seem more worried than me to lose,
4) What I need to have happen (to win) ALWAYS happens well
     before I reach either the end of my BR or I reach the table limit.

[Bayes]

at least by the fact that it doesn't tell the full story of what is possible.

Like I said Glenn, it accounts for everything. Can you tell me which part of the story is missing?

[MiniBaccarat]

G'day,

One of the things I use is getting onto a 'run' of say,
r,r,r,r,r or b,b,b,b,b or r,b,r,b,r, or b,r,b,r,b as they start and using a progression,
BUT if during a 'run' if it 'stalls' my betting will drop of and I'll wait till the next run to start.

I also use a positive progression idea so after the initial bet wins I'm using the winnings to finance the 'run'.

If I could learn to read Random and then flat bet, I would, but I don't seem capable so i will have to continue doing what has not failed me the last 200+ visits to the casino or a club.  (With modifications along the way).

Bayes & Gizmo have gone offline, so I guess we can pick this up later  (like waiting for a favourable 'run' to resume).

[gizmotron]

Bayes & Gizmo have gone offline, so I guess we can pick this up later  (like waiting for a favourable 'run' to resume).

I have a doctor appointment, I'll deal with it later.

I will deal with this though.

"For starters, you need to quantify past spins in terms of numbers, not time.  This is just common sense Gizmo, try to use some if you have any! "

I don't need to quantify past spins in terms of numbers. I need to quantify past spins in terms red streaks and black streaks, respective to the conditions of the question. This is not an argument solved by divide and conquer debating tactics. Regarding your common sense, I think you are a blithering idiot. I fully intend to ask you questions you will produce gibberish from. So leave your attempt at insults out of it.

[Bayes]

I don't need to quantify past spins in terms of numbers. I need to quantify past spins in terms red streaks and black streaks, respective to the conditions of the question.

Which can (and must) be expressed in terms of numbers. You could do it like in the Zumma books for the ECs:

R B
1
   1
2
   2
1 
   3
2
   1

Each number represents a streak length. One way of representing how an EC is behaving is to add up the numbers in a given sequence on either or both sides. It's possible to work out the probabilities of getting a certain total in a given number of spins. You can do this for any bet you like, dozens, streets etc. I'm not saying any of this gives you an advantage, but it's one way of trying to answer the questions which you insist that the maths cannot.

I think you are a blithering idiot.

Try keeping it civil Gizmo, or someone will complain and you'll find yourself banned again. To be honest I don't know why I'm bothering to reply. I can't take anything you say seriously.

[Bayes]

One of the things I use is getting onto a 'run' of say,
r,r,r,r,r or b,b,b,b,b or r,b,r,b,r, or b,r,b,r,b as they start and using a progression,
BUT if during a 'run' if it 'stalls' my betting will drop of and I'll wait till the next run to start.

Glenn,

If you're winning by playing like this, I say GREAT!.  I used to play the ECs a lot, but I never felt like I was on solid ground. Roulette can offer so much more! There's something for everyone, but you have to abide by certain principles to get a real edge. Plus, I'm no gambler, I like to play it safe. A system like yours would give me a heart attack. 

[You can win]

Hi Everyone
I see I woke this board up a little great.I see allot of great post's on here ,now we are getting somewhere . What I mean by that is, if there is a post on roulette then people can take that Idea into his method of play or say to him self that won't work with my method. But just maybe the next post might.Even some of the forum clowns left they will be back because as Steve said they are funny. All forums have them it keeps things in a happy way.I even enjoy them,because it show who they are at times.

Okay I really don't have much time but I can tell you all this Random is not Random .I have taught this for many years some now believe Random can't happen and never will.

When you people see numbers it's all in the math.
If things where really Random you would see the number 7 come in all day. People what you have to do is forget the past that was taught to you and start to use your own head. Just use your head just a little..

40 years ago when I started to beat all event's I had a solid base to start with .That was just true pure hard fact's and math was the answer, and nothing else.

What I base everything on is if the math says out of a ten pick that I have a 9 to 1 chance to win I'll take the 9 to 1 every time.

This is how it is done say after 30,000 to 40,000 times I get that in my program I feel great that I now have a 100% win factor.. Those were Idea's I use for the Big Games.

Now for Roulette The how and why I can beat all E.C. chances.
Study the method that I place here.I mean study it real hard. what you will find out I never guess.If you guess you will lose to the house edge every time no matter what you read in posts.
Now for any kind progressions . Wow you got to be kidding me. Any school kid can tell you that can't work EVER.

The method I have put here if you see at times I'm betting to lose because I bet the back and forth. People think that the back and forth is the same . But here is the why answer
I win because I'm betting the back and forth and not sitting on my you know what and do nothing. The answer is I'm not guessing and I'm betting real money when the event goes up and down.ad flat bet's only..
Here is proof.
When Einstein said  flip the coin 5,000 times and heads and tails will be close. The only thing Mr. Einstein didn't see because I guess it was to easy for him was the event it self.The event was going back and forth more then what the outcome was. .
So here is fact.

If the coin was close to even at 5,000 times say 20 .During the 5,000 flips the back and forth was much bigger. Yes Mr. Einstein did beat E.C but he never new it.It was to simple for him.

I hope you all enjoy the read. Also nice to see people talk and post. I see some 1,300 people enjoy the posts. Nice work people.
Have a great day to you and your family's

Your friend

You can win

[You can win]

-